Nomads and gypsies

Well given some of the other threads on here concerning property ownership,I am wondering what people think of the nomad or gypsie lifestyle.I encounter this mythos regularly as people pass through my place to help out or visit.I have at times been annoyed with these mythos due to the lack of relationship these types have with a particular landbase.And the usery of others management that that implies.Yet,as our future becomes less certain,Im sure more and more people(esp the youth)will be drawn to these ideals.I guess in a way,woofing is similar.Anyway,I enjoy the company and thus have had to learn to appreciate this subculture despite our different approaches.So is this approach(mobile oppertunist)Perma-culture?

I don't have a problem with it, although it would be nice if they didn't leave trash around or steal things.

I'd probably let folks camp on my place if they asked and weren't obnoxious.

We have a friend who owns property nearby but is seldom here. He travels up and down the PNW coast harvesting mushrooms, huckleberries, ferns, moss, lady bugs, from the National Forests and actually makes a pretty good living.
He does purchase the appropriate permits but lives on a cash only nomadic lifestyle and is happy with it.
He's been doing it for as long as I have known him so at least 15 years, not sure how long before that.
He reminds me of the "Hoedads" that I met in the late 70's in Oregon.
Not my idea of how to live I like the solidity of a place to call home.

I'm sort of conflicted about this.  for myself, I really value deep connection to a particular place.  I find myself wishing that more people shared that value with me.  on the other hand, I can't deny the value of traveling to see first hand how different folks and different cultures operate.  that is probably separate from the sort of nomadic lifestyle this thread is concerned with.

my initial feeling is that lifestyles like this aren't a problem and have a valuable roll to play unless too many folks adopt them.

From the individuals perspective it isn't very permanent, but I think one of the reasons people wwoof etc. is to transition to a more permanent place.  When you look at permanence based on the individual though, it is always temporary on some levels.

But if culture at large was permanent, I could envision a certain percent of the population being permanent(or temp) nomads, working at different farms and homesteads as needed. I have heard these characters referred to as "cross-pollinators".  As the permaculture network grows this niche will expand. 

I don't see anything wrong with aspiring to a perma-gypsie lifestyle.  Although I personally aim for something where I can have greater freedom and impact, this may not mean land ownership either.  Communal land stewardship?

Nomad - Communal - Personal Ownership...I see all as pieces of a whole in a permanent or temporary culture.  What is interesting is the level of responsibility increases with Nomad at the least and personal ownership at the highest.  We are here by wielding the power of fossil fuels, therefore I think in some ways it is the wiser person who limits his own power. In 2010 permaculture is the supreme paradigm
PS. I am 20 years young

I have to admit that the freedom of the nomad lifestyle appeals to me, but I am as of yet unwilling to abandon my anchors (books mostly) which drive me to build a home. That said, there are many aspects of homesteading which I truly love, gardening etc, which are simply not possible with a mobile lifestyle.

Still, I travel a great deal to work for friends and family, so that I am gone at least 30% of any given year, sometimes as much has half of the year, so I do have one foot in the nomad door so to speak. I see little problem with it and a permie life, assuming that the nomad is practicing permaculture at the stops or layovers.. For instance I garden almost everywhere I go, though I don't get to enjoy the harvest very often..

just my two cents..

I can see some of the appeal of a nomadic life, but like the rest of you, I find disadvantages to it -- the desire for a garden and a settled home, the need for a community of friends and family.  When I first saw the thread title, I was thinking of some of the nomadic herding tribes and peoples -- most of whom have been forced to settle down.  At least some of them were no more detrimental to the environment they lived in than migrating herds of wild ruminants; lacking those wild ruminants, their migrations with their herds and flocks was more beneficial than detrimental.  THAT kind of nomadic lifestyle is one I could enjoy, with our own territory to migrate on. 

But the kind of nomadic life you guys are talking about, basically being gypsies taking whatever work is available, isn't for me.  I probably COULD do that if I had to, but it certainly wouldn't be my first choice.  If I did have to live that way, I'd still want to keep my little herd of goats, which limits the options.

Kathleen

you bring up a good point, Kathleen.  I think there's a good chance that much of the Great Plains would better support a nomadic pastoral lifestyle than it does permanent agricultural use.

tel jetson wrote:
you bring up a good point, Kathleen.  I think there's a good chance that much of the Great Plains would better support a nomadic pastoral lifestyle than it does permanent agricultural use.

Yes, I've thought that, too.  There's no going back, though, at least not in the foreseeable future.

Kathleen

I guess I'm on a different end of the spectrum from most people here.  I've lived a nomadic life, twice throwing away everything I owned that I could not carry.  There's a lot to be said for learning to live life in a manner that is not at all dependent on personal possessions, being able to travel freely, live without any responsibilities, etc.  It helped me tremendously and I could not be at all the same person without it.  There is a sense of confidence and non-dependence that I don't know how I could have gained otherwise.

However as much as I enjoy that lifestyle, there is much it cannot afford me.  I cannot reliably eat foods grown and produced the way I prefer them to be.  I cannot have a place to call my own.  Since I do not have a place to keep many things, I have to suffice with the choices that others have made, which are not in accord with my own beliefs.  And while it feels like you are non-dependent, in reality you are dependent on the waste and/or generosity of others.

So for over a year now, I've been living in one place, working and paying off old abandoned debts, accumulating some of the things I think are important to the way I want to live the rest of my life.  Now I'm moving from my apartment into a rented house with property that I can start growing my own food on and doing more projects that are not feasible in an apartment - obtaining more direct experience with learning sustainable living practices.  Over the next year I hope to save up money to buy land with.  My future seems very clear to me - right now I cannot really fully engage in permaculture as I would like due to being on borrowed land, but I can start getting direct experience growing things, maybe raising a few smaller animals such as chickens and rabbits, composting, and preserving foods.  I can make things like a rocket stove, cob oven, solar dehydrator, and other things that I think are important knowledge for the long-term.  I can accumulate more books and knowledge in the meantime.

I'm already at a point where I don't buy anything with more than a single ingredient - I make everything myself.  Lately I've contacted a farm about getting a cowshare so that I have a source of raw milk, as I'm already familiar with making my own yoghurt, cream cheese, whey for pickling other things, etc.  I hope that by next summer I can stop buying 90% of the food I do now in trade of food that I've grown myself.  I hope that in another year or so, I can buy some land in a remote location, and have all the supplies I reasonably need to get set up there and sustain myself for some time.  I may or may not be at a point where I can just abandon everything and move there right away, but in any case I can purchase something and start getting it set up.  Within 2 or 3 years, I hope to be entirely self-sufficient on land that I own.

But I could not be that confident without my past nomadic experiences.  From that, I know that if things don't work out as I plan at first, I can still survive.  I have no feeling of dependence on my own work because while I strongly prefer to be self-dependent, if it fails I know that I can get by another way, at least for the interim.

So, from one who has abandoned a mainstream life in favor of nomadism and is now moving into a life of permaculture, let me just suggest that different people need to go through different stages in life, but one does not prevent another from coming in the future.  And sometimes, these seemingly opposite things can help build one up for a life that is not so nomadic.

In an ideal world, I hope to get a small community of friends at some point, so that I can still travel on occasion when I want to, knowing that I have a place to come back to that will be taken care of in my absence.  But right now myself is enough to worry about!

I'd suspect not so very different.. shared desires bring folks together more often than shared histories..

I am a part time traveler, enough to screw up my garden plans, but not enough to liberate me completely either..

Still, I respect your experience as it clearly has much to teach us all. Glad to hear your tale..

Wow quite a journey you are on raptelan, twice cleansed!  I think you are right with your last line...nobody is 100% self sufficient Good Luck! Nice to hear about such valuable information and skills being learned without money or the associated environmental damage. 

There are people who survive on dumpster diving.  I celebrate these people for supporting themselves and doing no damage to the planet.  Its not permaculture, but its practical for the present.

Currently permaculture's main value lays not in the yields of food, fiber, fodder etc (could be less than the amount of food that goes to the landfill in the US every year), but in the vast yields of information that is expanding and flowing through each and every one of us.  I think Holmgren might agree.

Storm wrote:
I'd suspect not so very different.. shared desires bring folks together more often than shared histories..

Very true, and that's a good thing.  I've got plenty of lame history I'm not proud of too!  Glad to have found this place - it's been a pleasure reading your input.

I too have wondered about which eco-system would best support a traditional nomadic lifestyle.Lacking domestic animals(dog excluded),Nomadism seems uncommon amongst Native Americans.The great plains seems the most appropriate.Places where it is open and requires moving great distances to aquire different resources.Most people subscribing to the IDEA of nomadism seem to be rationalising using industrial Civiliztion to perpetuate the mythos of who they are.

I think many native americans moved around their territories from season to season - at least that seems to be the case in my region - rather than living a settled village existence.  That is, the hunter-gatherers, not the agriculturalists.  But not moving great distances because territories probably weren't that huge.  Nomadism over large areas requires one to be fierce enough to move across others' territories.  The Comanche of my region were like that, but they used horses.  I don't know what their way of life was like before the Spanish brought horses. 

True,they did travel around but if they built any type of permanent structures for wintering in,they would be considered semi-sedentary.True agriculturalists(annuals)are often sedentary.West coast tribes followed a "hoop";always returning to the permanent settlements and the old and weak stayed there all year.I cannot speak for tribes beyond my bioregion.I like the semi-sedentary reality because its the best of both worlds but it is often defined by landscape.Here,we have vast mountanous areas that are uninhabitable in the winter but filled with resources in the summer.

I think it's true of most (all, maybe?) nomads that they follow a hoop.  I was recently reading about a very large pastoral tribe in the middle east who moved over a huge mountain range and river to take their herds to new grazing ground each year.  They used to do it mostly on foot, with some tribe members riding, but later did it in trucks    I don't know if they even live a nomadic existence anymore...

  I heard tha tgypsies came from india, were part of a hindu caste that entertained and so i suppose traveling was necessary in the past actors used to take their shows to different towns. WHen i saw a progarm on Cnn international on how they paint their lorries except they are decorated with strips of sticcky plastic pare in pakinstan incredible very pretty and pretty inside as wel as out i thought of old gypsy caravans and thought is is true they must come from india way. It is strang ehow people who live in foriegn countries manage to kkeep their traditions like painting their caravans for centuries. THe amish woudl ift in with these people fo rkeeping their traditions.
  I suppose a strong family makes ofor security while you move around though undoubtedly things get very tough for them family or not. In spain they sing and dance flamenco which is as interesting as good african american music, It is so for me at any rate they have a rich tradition that creates complicated musica and dance and are lively and intelligent and also have some crushing traditions that make hthe position of many women or some people hard.
    It is important to remember that what looks jolly from the outside has some opressive and less jolly aspects from inside because misjudging things is the first step towards cruelty.  Being always on the verge of getting into jail is a cruel reality that exists for young gypsies, as is the fact that with very few work outlets buying and selling drugs becomes an occupation for a lot of young gypsies here in Spain and one that teads to jail for some and also to addiction to heroine for others. Addiction to heroine for a  large porcent of¡the youth of your grup is a sad reality for the group. I would not like it for my children or to see there was little hope of them avoiding it in the circles they moved in or at any rate a bigger than normal  possibility of it being part of their life.  agri rose macaskie.

Growing up I always dreamed of living as a Gypsy or the Native Americans.. It is a lifestyle that I hope is always around.

I agree Kathleen... My goats wouldn't appreciate it! They are lazy 

  Mt goat i have to say what i have not said, that i terribly admire people who live as you describe as frelancers without even  a home or gypsies or nomads.

Then there are the Basque sheepherders... they usually have a few goats as well!

Been reading Wendell Berry lately; The Unsettling Of America, so perhaps this colors my thinking, but so does Fukuoka-sensei and the permacultural ideals as a whole.

Both Berry and F-san talk about the knowledge of the place the need to bond to the land to understand it beyond scientific principle and agricultural technique. I think Casey is getting at that with the settling down to a piece of land; hunting/gathering is all romantical and such, but it is not a viable technique for anything larger than a tribal unit, and we are a bit past that...

If we plant to feed ourselves through the upcoming economic shift (and resulting turmoil), we need to establish our mental and spiritual bonds to the land that will sustain us. While one can certainly appreciate the majesty of varied landscape and the inherent beauties of any ecosystem, one will be ill equipped to wrest sustainance from any soil that he has not made part of his own being, through continued contact and habitation.


IMO, root where you are planted...

S

I for myself love both. Travelling and having a solid home to come back to. I am full employed have health insurance, paying income tax, etc, etc, but when I have vacation I travel. I visit different places, meet different people. See new ways to handle things but in the end I bring these new ideas, thought processes home.

I think being nomadic is quite a romantic idea but a solid home is much more important to me. I love to care for one place. Make it better, improve my understanding of this place. Being nomadic sounds shallow to me and wouldn't statisfy me because I have higher goals than being one with myself.

I think most nomads consider themselves to be visiting different parts of their home, especially in the past where they would move depending on time of year. Mongolia is still very much this way... to the point that it is a waste of time building a fence as it will just be removed when someone wants to go through. (burns well too)

I don't think most modern people are equipped to understand how a nomad feels about "home". I think they are nomads because they are connected to the land.... they know that winter may be milder in the north sometimes or that food may be available. Being connected to the land does not mean a one spot of land, but able to move where the land "wants" you when the time is right.

I don't know how this applies to the gypsies. (who I think are a specific group of people)

Ludi Ludi wrote:
  I don't know what their way of life was like before the Spanish brought horses. 

Read an interesting book recently: 1491 by Charles C. Mann he talks about Native American civilization before Europeans.  It challenges a lot of preconceived notions and assumptions about population levels and level of development amongst Indians.  Among many other details and arguments, he concludes that both continents had high population densities, urban centers and well developed agro-forestry systems.  Really interesting read, and some cool discussion of bio-char and forest gardening as well.  Turns out the "Indian as nomad" may be a modern myth.

Scott Reil wrote:
hunting/gathering is all romantical and such, but it is not a viable technique for anything larger than a tribal unit, and we are a bit past that...

I don't know exactly how nomadic all people in all places were, but a lot more of human history was as hunter-gatherer ( or scavenger-gatherer, as they are starting to say now) than as agricultural.

Mostly a man of the land. I need to have a place to call home, but of course I like seeing new things now and then too. New ideas, new way of life.

maikeru wrote:
Mostly a man of the land. I need to have a place to call home, but of course I like seeing new things now and then too. New ideas, new way of life.

But if you don't have a truck to move the food to you, it makes more sense to be close to where the food is. If you grow your own, you have to stay in one place while it grows, but if you gather, you must move to where the fresh food is. Best animal raising seems to be moving them often too.

Len wrote:
But if you don't have a truck to move the food to you, it makes more sense to be close to where the food is. If you grow your own, you have to stay in one place while it grows, but if you gather, you must move to where the fresh food is. Best animal raising seems to be moving them often too.

That's true, I plan to be where the good food is.

Mongolian nomads move the food production with them when they go because of the herding nature of their existance. When you have thousands of miles of empty step you can do that. Try it on Manhattan. Or Boise, even. Romantic, but impractical.

If we are to to sustain current population (let alone more people) and maintain a healthy ecosystem that provides necessary services (atmospheric recycling, water purification, carbon storage), we must shift to a less consumptive, more agrarian society that values quality food production of mostly plant sourced nutrition. Agriculture means ssettleing down; has since the very beginning. You might go as far as prot-farming in the New Guinean tradition (a style of agriculture virtually unchanged in 5000 years must have SOMETHING going for it), but even that restricts the population to a certain size (the population in New Guinea has not changed a whole lot in centuries either).


I think Bill and Dave had the right idea, and that's why I am here. Become part of the land; this lies at the root of permaculture. Can't do that moving about.

One man's opinion.

S

Scott Reil wrote:
Mongolian nomads move the food production with them when they go because of the herding nature of their existance. When you have thousands of miles of empty step you can do that. Try it on Manhattan. Or Boise, even. Romantic, but impractical.

In the world as it is today, you got it.

If we are to to sustain current population (let alone more people) and maintain a healthy

The word "IF" is the important one. There are a lot of people..... most are not like minded, they are born and raised consumers. I know we all consume, but the level of how much of what we consume is prepared by others varies. Those who prepare for themselves are not going to want to share what they prepare with 10 or 100 times our number without some kind payment. In fact , even if they wanted to... I think they would die trying. I don't know I don't think sustaining our current population is going to happen in the long run.

I think Bill and Dave had the right idea, and that's why I am here. Become part of the land; this lies at the root of permaculture. Can't do that moving about.

I agree, I don't think I could go nomadic myself. I was just pointing out that some who do also consider themselves to have a close connection to the land, just a wider piece. No I don't think it is practical here and now.

Scott Reil wrote:
Mongolian nomads move the food production with them when they go because of the herding nature of their existance. When you have thousands of miles of empty step you can do that. Try it on Manhattan. Or Boise, even. Romantic, but impractical.

If we are to to sustain current population (let alone more people) and maintain a healthy ecosystem that provides necessary services (atmospheric recycling, water purification, carbon storage), we must shift to a less consumptive, more agrarian society that values quality food production of mostly plant sourced nutrition. Agriculture means ssettleing down; has since the very beginning. You might go as far as prot-farming in the New Guinean tradition (a style of agriculture virtually unchanged in 5000 years must have SOMETHING going for it), but even that restricts the population to a certain size (the population in New Guinea has not changed a whole lot in centuries either).


I think Bill and Dave had the right idea, and that's why I am here. Become part of the land; this lies at the root of permaculture. Can't do that moving about.

One man's opinion.

S

Fukuoka once discussed this and some numbers in his books... I don't recall all of them. Perhaps something like 20-30 billion if we're mostly vegetarians/vegans. (Whether we want to live in such a congested world is another issue--I sure don't.) It appears that the earth is having great difficulty sustaining our current numbers and eating habits, and I don't know if it would be able to sustain a largely carnivorous 7-10 billion in the near future. Let us say I have some serious doubts.

I heard Mollison say, (either in the Designer's Manual or in the video course PDC with Lawton) that it is cheaper to have a winter home and a summer home than it is to keep one location heated/cooled all year around. That seems to favor a semi-nomadic lifestyle. Also, he has mentioned more than once (I paraphrase) that permaculture yields itself to having a home-base from which to travel and teach others or engage in aid work. Once the base has been established and well-managed for three-five years, you can be gone for about nine months of the year without significant disruption to the system if well-designed.

Our family is currently in a difficult situation, and I am trying to figure out a way to practice permaculture and gain practical experience when we don't own our own place. We seem to be moving every few months. Often, the places we are at do not invite permaculture principles, and I feel continually stymied. What to do? For example, when a guest in someone else's home, I do not have the liberty of composting or gardening, etc., when the homeowners have no wish to learn about or experiment with those things. I know this is an old thread, but if anyone comes across it and has good advice, I would love to hear it.

Thanks for waking up this thread Natasha, I had missed it. I'm afraid I don't have much advice for you though...but if I were caught up in a nomadic lifestyle I would embrace it and learn those skills. Learn the wild plants and wild harvest where you are, and eat well, learn to hunt, learn to trade, learn to make simple, useful things with what is at hand and let them return to the earth when you move on rather than dragging Stuff across the continent. Learn the seasons in different watersheds, the timing of the harvests, the times when you can cross the rivers. See how little you can take with you, how small and simple your tools can be...How small your footprint can be...In the bush here they say 'the more you know, the less you carry'. The AST (arctic small tool tradition) 1 and 2 cultures made do with stone knives the size of quarters, but they could Move!

This is the deepest, central tension in my life right now. I believe in what permaculture can do, but i wasn't made with a farmer's heart...there is too much nomad deep within. I'm always looking off at the horizon. Many here value home, and I suppose I understand that, but it is more a burden for me...and the delicate systems we set up, and all of the animals, seem to demand a constant hand...

And I remember this divide, these two solitudes, from the days when I wandered...either tree planting or sailing my boat around...how those with land and property looked on with mistrust and suspicion and how i cared less and weighed anchor and raised the mains'l on a steady NW'er. It may be that we should be true to our nature.

'Not all those who wander are lost'

Natasha, I've been in a similar situation for the last few years and am just now looking seriously at properties to start my homestead. One thing that has helped me a ton is the book Fresh Food from Small Spaces by R J Ruppenthal. You won't be able to make a self sustaining homestead but it will give you a tremendous amount of practice with container gardening, sprouting and mushrooms which are all semi-portable.

Natasha Turner wrote:We seem to be moving every few months. Often, the places we are at do not invite permaculture principles, and I feel continually stymied. What to do?

There are so many people posting here on the board for people to join their intentional community or live and work on their permaculture homestead, it seems as if finding a place to practice permaculture would be possible.

Wow guys! You don't know how much your replies have encouraged me. Kari, you have some great tips. I had previously only scratched the surface of those areas and just focused on my frustration with not having my own place to practice. I actually do love moving around, and it has been very interesting to read others' viewpoints here. I'm going to take some time to ponder what you said.

Emily & Tyler, thank you for your advice as well. I will look into those suggestions. Tyler, I hadn't noticed those posts before. I will have to search more specifically. Emily, I've never heard of that book before, but I have been wondering for years how I could take my garden with me. I think mushrooms may be a great place to start.

See ya 'round,
Natasha

In addition to this intentional community forum, also check this forum: https://permies.com/forums/f-27/WWOOF-organic-farm-volunteers-interns as well as the regional forums for people looking for people.

I see the word Gypsy being used, rather than the generic vagabond or traveller. Gypsies are an ethnic group originally from Northern India who migrated first to Europe and more recently around the world. Most now prefer to be called Roma,although I know a couple who still use Gypsy. They find it easier than explaining it to everyone. The name and derivatives of it have come to have a negative connotation(gyp, gyped, gyppo,... most relating to dishonesty) in many circles. Discriminatory practices directed at them have been common throughout Europe for centuries. The Nazis killed over a million Roma. Even today it is difficult for many Roma in Eastern and Southern Europe to find housing, employment and equal access to government services.

I won't write a book on it, since many already exist.

Nomad is a very generic term which could be applied to dozens of indigenous peoples.

Not trying to get all PC , just a little anthropology/history lesson.

this is an interesting read.
got a bunch of ideas i want to respond to, some i agree with and somethings i do not. and just...ooo when i read and talk with people about this kind of stuff its hard for me to get people, or i hear it all so differently in the subtext.
i feel like i have such weird ideas about this kind of stuff, these are themes and ideas i think about a lot...but even the really radical people i know cant usually really get into the kinds of ideas i want to share about this kind of stuff. attacking private property paradigms and a lot of the assumptions and base ideas people have about this stuff, well i feel like many people cant understand how i see it. this is ok, it is what it is, they dont have to. but this stuff has HUGE impacts on us, and is in need of some changing paradigms and deeper understandings, not assumptions and perceptions..
so gonna rant it out here i hope thats ok =)

Len Ovens wrote:I think most nomads consider themselves to be visiting different parts of their home, especially in the past where they would move depending on time of year. Mongolia is still very much this way... to the point that it is a waste of time building a fence as it will just be removed when someone wants to go through. (burns well too)

I don't think most modern people are equipped to understand how a nomad feels about "home". I think they are nomads because they are connected to the land.... they know that winter may be milder in the north sometimes or that food may be available. Being connected to the land does not mean a one spot of land, but able to move where the land "wants" you when the time is right.

I don't know how this applies to the gypsies. (who I think are a specific group of people)

totally agreed.
i agree with this perspective they were more connected to the land, because they live within it, not on top of it. but not so much confined to a specific part of the land, they needed to know the whole bioregion where they were. there was no reason to own a specific portion of it, because people could just be where they are...they werent born into memes of disconnection and exile, like most all modern people are unfortunately.

so i have...compassion and understanding for all the people who are caught up in this in a way, even those who own land, or those who are ungrounded, maybe more specifically for those who are displaced. it is not their fault or their doing, yet somehow this is pointed at individuals.
which at this point is just about everyone, on some level because thats how entrenched the paradigms of exile are...even in ones own space, people are in exile. do their gates lock things out, or lock them in???

and yeah the hoop loop that was how the older nomadic people moved . not disconnected at all, just having a totally different conception of home base, and not thinking very much about EXCLUSIVE ownership. or just this tiny plot of land, they were at home whereever they were on the land and got to know it all by walking it.
and it was just taken for granted that where you were was where you belonged, no entitlement or reason needed.

but totaly its a misunderstanding to think that because someone moves around that they are disconnected, though that can be the case with a lot of people as it lends itself to that detachment and being ungrounded. and i do see what this is saying somewhat, but i think its much bigger than just people choosing it or getting into the mythos, its been somewhat forced on people.


also the gypsies are an example of this actually, they werent neccessarily by nature disconnected or wandering, they were forced from their places of rightful belonging and exiled.
so whatever stereotypes people can have and created about the gypsies, or even the modern "gypsy" dont reflect that, its not neccessarily a choice that created that, or not thier choice anyway.

when what they had was taken forcefully from them, then whats left to the people? to take back? or to wander in disconnection. not that it was only them, but thats the sense i have of how that went down there, what was rightfully theirs was taken and then they were forced into more desperate and dysfunctional lifeways. and disconnection....
and many other people who became wanderers and such were not originally so but were exiled from their proper places. actually at this point, most people...are basically the victim of this, yet of course no one is allowed to be victimized or whatever...so theres all this weird...o idk what to call it....not understanding how this came to be and instead looking only at some of the louder manifestations of this huge thing.

well not all choose it, and not all are forced into it- or it doesnt seem that way exactly
though in a way people are almost forced into it even if its unrecognized.
including people who own land and stay in one place...they are still somewhat forced into it- detachment and exile, exclusion and isolation are all seeming to be the norms of our cultures and these modern contexts.

its like a whole world full of people who are in exile, even a lot of the people who own land are still detached from the land. someone can be connected to the land and move, or stay in one place, it depends on the person. someone could live somewhere for a very long time and yet still be detached from it mostly.
and strange -this exile seems to be normal and perpetuates itself, one exiles and rejects what they feel excluded from, an the disconnection grows deeper.

and all exile, even though this doesnt seem to be the case, is self exile. the more you exlude others, the more you are actually excluding and isolating yourself.

its like, ah so backwards, like so much else! so by now most everyone is living in exile...well ok thats too extreme because i believe many people are seeing this and want to hold open the space for everyone to see this and realize our connections. even if you get this stuff, you still live here in the now with all the dominant, dominator paradigms.
so someone can not be perpetuating any of this but here we are in the middle of it, and having to somewhat play the game and somehow obtain private property and whatever other weird illusions that are somehow real. the backwardness- in order to get somewhat free of these things, of the sucky factor of these paradigms you have to buy into the illusion of private property...yet theres a lot of people who rise above all this and dont perpetuate the same weirdness even though they are forced to participate in it, who own property or not.

and not to say all people who wander are being forced noticeably in the now to do so, but many people were uprooted from their places and communally managed/open/public land was all turned over to landlords and such, and the whole takeover mentality of dominator culture, neo colonialism stole the land not only from the people but stole the land from itself. now things are so locked down and its so much more difficult to even think things could be different. to me it seems things should be different, more like how it was where there was still a sense of comunal management and ownership of things, yet private sanctuary and private belongings
instead of the living in someone elses world that one who cant afford to pay the piper must endure.

and the detachment from the land, imo, was caused in large part by the private property paradigms.
so not sure i would agree with the underlaying ideas presented here that property owners are neccessarily more deeply connected to the land...as in some kind of accurate perception that always applies, or any of the implications and ideas people tend to have about this stuff...
and this gets repeated a lot- like some kind of assumption that people who are by choice or by circumstance ungrounded, or dont have the fortune of having land of their own....are messy or leave trash, etc and etc....way too much etc, just like a lot of assumptions about people who own land...or whatever else...all the assumptions that maybe arent spoken about specifically...and not even fully believed, but theres all these ideas and memes floating around in the air or something anyway, being in our culture and its disconnection memes is a victimazation, even to those who refuse to victimize or be victimized- somehow everyone gets this stuff pinned on them like so many other off cultural assumptions.

but the people who do manage to pull this off are given a more stable foundation and can more easily connect deeply with the land. and the people who do not, whether they are choosing or partially forced (or unwilling to wage slave or just not trust funded or whatever to be way too blunt) are unfortunately more likely to be ungrounded and not deeply connected to the land. but there are some who wander and are at home everywhere.