Listing to survive. Why the Dutch traveler community wanted to have its heritage officially recognized

ABSTRACT

In recent times, the Dutch Traveler community has successfully gained official recognition of its heritage. At first glance, one would consider that Tajfel’s ‘creativity’ – in this case a desire to change a ‘negative social identity’ through the use of heritage – explains the aim of the community to gain official recognition. However, if ‘creativity’ were responsible for this aspiration, it would be an extreme and radical form of it. The aim of the Traveler community to preserve its way of life and its survival as an ‘ethnic group’ lies at the heart of its motivation to strive for official recognition of its heritage and use this recognition as a weapon against the local authorities. In this interesting case of legal ‘instrumentalization’ of cultural heritage, the actions of the Dutch Traveler community prompted changes in governmental policies. Prior to receiving official recognition of their heritage, policies were often aimed at abolishing their way of life.

KEYWORDS:

• Cultural heritage
• intangible heritage
• policy-making
• travelers
• ethnogenesis

Introduction

In August 2014, when the Dutch Traveler culture was included in the national heritage list, four aspects of it were specified: a distinctive housing culture, social cohesion, mutual ties expressed in life cycle rituals, and being self-employed. These aspects were then further subdivided (Bergema 2015, 40). This subdivision is not noteworthy; however, a noteworthy factor is that the aspects of Traveler culture only marginally differ from that of Dutch society. Sjaak Khonraad, a social scientist, who wrote his PhD thesis on Dutch Travelers in 2000, claimed that a separate Traveler culture does not exist (Khonraad 2000, 14–17). However, our opinion is aligned with that of Laurajane Smith (2006), Stuart Hall (2008), and Dennis Byrne (2008), who have stated that heritage is socially constructed based on heritage discourses and narratives. If the narratives articulated by members of the Traveler community emphasize these four aspects as ‘heritage’, at least from their perspective, that is what they are. However, the question regarding why the Travelers perceived these four aspects as heritage and even requested official recognition have yet to be addressed in the literature.

This question is increasingly important because heritage listing is not without its dangers. In heritage studies, it is often assumed that ‘listing’ may lead to the ossification of intangible heritage, thereby leading to its demise (Nas 2002; Logan 2008; Neyrinck 2017). Therefore, communities of heritage owners have reason to be suspicious about official recognition. Experts are usually the ones who take the lead during the listing processes (Smeets and Deacon 2016). However, in this instance, the community itself has led the listing process.

In the field of heritage studies, there is a lack of theories to help explain why the Travelers led the listing process; however, there are useful theories in the field of social psychology to explain this phenomenon. According to Henri Tajfel, a social psychologist, the negative social identity of minority members drives these processes. According to Tajfel, people attempt to counter negative social identity because it may lead to an unfavorable self-image. When people attempt to counter negative social identity, there are three strategies available: individual mobility, social competition, and ‘creativity’. If individual mobility is perceived as being blocked and social competition is not perceived as being viable, ‘creativity’ is the only remaining option. Creativity often entails changing the value put on (aspects of) one’s culture. People who attempt this face the problem of acquiring legitimacy for revaluing (aspects of) their culture among members of the dominant outgroup (Tajfel and Turner 1979 40–46). This is where heritage listing may have come in handy.

Although Tajfel’s theory is influential among social psychologists, it has received criticism. For example, Nimmi Hutnik (1991, 51–52, 58–59, 76, 109, 155) stated that being a member of a minority group does not automatically imply a negative self-image. Therefore, ‘creativity’ may not have been the driving factor of heritage listing in this case; there may have been other reasons. In the present article, we have attempted to identify these reasons, if any. Therefore, we first focus on Tajfel and his critics, and then consider the Dutch Travelers, their ethnogenesis, and the process of heritage listing itself.

The data for the final parts of our article have been gathered by interviewing the most notable participants, namely, independent experts, lawyers, journalists, politicians, and administrators on both the local, provincial, and central government levels. We have interviewed representatives from the housing corporations, the private companies that operate the caravan sites, the Dutch Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage, and the Traveler activists themselves. We have also attended intergovernmental meetings at various levels, and were present during interactions between the Travelers and housing corporations and municipalities. The interviews have been conducted in the interviewees’ native language.

Social identity and ‘creativity’

Tajfel, a social-psychologist, clarified the distinction between personal and social identity, which both influence self-perception. According to Tajfel, being a member of a minority group typically entails an unfavorable social identity, thus leading to a negative self-image (Haslam 2004, 21–26; Tajfel 2010, 153–154). Minority group members must deal with this situation, and there are three methods of doing so. The first method is ‘individual mobility’, which entails leaving one’s group, thereby changing one’s social identity. If this proves to be impossible, the second method is ‘social competition’, which consists of collectively challenging the dominant group. The third method is ‘creativity’ (Tajfel 2010, 163–169). Creativity consists of three forms: one can attempt to compare one’s group with other groups on a new dimension, one can change the value attached to specific group aspects, or one can attempt to have one’s group be compared with a different outgroup (Tajfel and Turner 1979 40–46). According to Tajfel, individual mobility is the preferred strategy; only if that method proves to be impossible, the other two strategies are considered (Tajfel 1978, 61, 63–64, 93–98). ‘Creativity’ is selected if it is believed that the status quo cannot be changed (Haslam et al. 2010, 341, 343–346). One of the forms it takes is to revalue aspects of one’s group culture, which may entail some reinterpretation or reinvention. However, this entails two challenges: one’s own group and the dominant outgroups must accept the outcome of ‘creativity’ (Tajfel 1981, 283–287, 329–342, 2010, 169–170). In this case, we believe that heritage and heritage listing can be useful.

Tajfel’s theory has been highly influential among social psychologists, and has often been tested through experiments. The majority of Tajfel’s theory has been confirmed through these experiments, although the relations between the theory’s components – the causalities that appear to be implied – turn out to not be as straightforward as the theory suggests (Jackson et al. 1996, 242; Turner 1999, 7; Brown 2000, 758–762; Haslam et al. 2010, 341, 343–6).

However, the related findings in sociological and anthropological research point in different directions. Hutnik observed that minority group membership does not necessarily indicate a negative self-image. A positive self-image can also be obtained by comparing oneself with members of one’s own group. Moreover, membership in minority groups can provide members with dignity, instead of disdain, which is one of the reasons that assimilation is often an undesirable option (Hutnik 1991, 51–52, 58–59, 76, 109, 155). Therefore, it is uncertain whether ‘creativity’ was the driving factor of the heritage listing of the Dutch Traveler culture. It may also have been a factor that is aligned with Hutnik’s criticism.

Travelers in the Netherlands

However, to determine the driving factor of the heritage listing of the Dutch Traveler culture, we must first consider the Dutch Traveler community and their ethnogenesis. Currently, there are some 30,000 caravan dwellers inhabiting 1,150 caravan sites in the Netherlands (Bergema 2015, 5). Their group – which should be distinguished from Sinti and Roma – is a relatively recent phenomenon, dating back to the last quarter of the nineteenth century, when improved roads made it possible to travel with caravans (Cottaar 1996, 22–27, 266–268). When people first started living in caravans, the government attempted to discourage this practice. Amid concerns that they would be forced to provide poverty relief if the Travelers stayed longer, municipalities made efforts to ensure that the Travelers’ stay was as short as possible. However, this changed after the Caravan Act of 1918 (van Ooijen 1993, 36; Cottaar 1996, 268; Sluiter 2011, 15).

The Caravan Act of 1918 was intended to halt the increase in caravan dwelling. According to this law, Travelers were required to provide for themselves and show a certificate of good conduct. Moreover, there were minimum requirements for the caravans. Municipalities needed to provide pitches for the caravans; therefore, they could no longer deny entrance to Travelers (van Ooijen 1993, 104, 111, 139; Cottaar 1996, 204–205), and thus needed to facilitate caravanning (Meloen 1990, 9). This led to unintended consequences – the number of Travelers continued to increase (van Ooijen 1993, 155).

Consequently, before the Second World War, an alternative policy was discussed – the concentration of Travelers at permanent sites. The Nazi occupiers put these plans into practice. In 1941, all caravan dwellers were registered, and in 1943, traveling was restricted. They intended to house the Travelers on large sites; however, many caravan dwellers evaded concentration by temporarily moving into houses. When the war ended, traveling started anew (van Ooijen 1993, 161, 163–164, 167; Sluiter 2011, 36–37).

Despite that, the idea of concentrating Travelers on regional sites had not disappeared. In 1957, municipalities were provided the possibility to create joint sites for several municipalities at once (van Ooijen 1993, 179–180). However, the real change came in 1968, when a new caravan act was passed, wherein concentration was the ultimate goal. Approximately fifty regional sites intended for 50–80 caravans would be created; these sites would include their own schools, community centers, social workers, and medical care. The only people who were permitted to live at these caravan sites were people who could prove that they had lived in a caravan before, or were descendants of caravan dwellers (van Ooijen 1993, 192, 199). Oddly enough, people whose occupation necessitated living in a caravan, such as road menders and showmen, were exempted from this law (van Ooijen 1993, 200). Traveling had now become impossible because these new sites were the only places where Travelers were permitted to park their caravans, and a permit was required for moving (Cottaar 1996, 279–280). Soon, this law had unintended consequences. Concentration, which was conducted with the intention of reeducation and resocialization, increased the gap between the Travelers and the rest of society. Moreover, caravan dwellers vehemently opposed compulsive rehousing (de Bakker and Beunk 1993, 10–11). Massive protests occurred during 1971–1972 due to these issues (Cottaar, Lucassen, and Willems 1990, 125; van Ooijen 1993, 214).

Consequently, in 1975, the government published a memorandum that reversed the Traveler policy. During this time, deconcentration and ‘normalization’ were the objectives. Travelers were regarded as regular citizens who would be offered similar facilities as that of other Dutch people, and would be housed on small sites in the vicinity of residential areas (Khonraad 2000, 23–25). The memorandum was transformed into a law in 1977 (van Ooijen 1993, 260–261, 268), but this would not put an end to all of the large sites (van Ooijen 1993, 350). Travelers would soon be covered by the policies related to other minorities as well. The aim was to integrate them into society, while retaining their own culture (Tuynman-Kret and Koopman 1984, 23; Overbekking, Hahn, and Driessen 1991, 254; van Ooijen 1993, 18; Khonraad 2000, 29, 105, 109). ‘Identity’, and ‘culture’ became buzzwords during this period (de Bakker and Beunk 1993, 20).

Radical changes continued throughout the 1990s, culminating in 1999, when the Caravan Act was finally repealed. The caravans now fell under the Housing Act, and were thus managed by municipalities and housing corporations (van Ooijen 1993, 310–311, 313; VROM-Inspectie 2006, 3, 5, 9; Sluiter 2011, 129, 174). For eighty years, caravan dwellers had received special treatment and specific laws had applied to them; that had come to an end (Terpstra 2000, 2). However, what has not ended is the special identity that had begun emerging when the government implemented the 1968 law. Nor did the abolishment of their special legal position put an end to marginalization. According to Salemink (2016, 128), caravan dwellers ‘still live in marginal places and are socially excluded from “settled” Dutch society’. Salemink (2016, 127) also stated that this has ‘partly [been] caused by the larger – or settled – society, and [is] partly a consequence of the Gypsy-Travelers’ choice to preserve their culture and maintain their economic independence’.

The effects of repealing the caravan act in 1999

By using extensive genealogical research, Cottaar (1996, 37–80, 1998a, 128, 1998b, 189) clarified in her PhD thesis that most Travelers descended from house dwellers, who chose to transition to caravans at a specific moment in their lives (see also van Ooijen 1993, 354). Prior to 1968, they had not formed a closed group; people had freely moved in and out of caravans. The distinct culture they now possess only began developing when the government defined them as a group based on descent; this occurred by stipulating that only descendants of Travelers could live in caravans, and then giving this special treatment (Cottaar 1996, 37–80, 1998a, 128, 1998b, 189; Penninx 1988, 211; Meloen 1990, 13–14, 52–53; Khonraad 2000, 14–17). Taking away this special position again led Travelers to emphasize their specific culture (Cottaar 1998a, 115). Currently, they make a strong distinction between ‘original’ Travelers, and caravan dwellers who formerly inhabited houses (Tuynman-Kret and Koopman 1984, 187). Therefore, government policy appears to have transformed them into an ‘ethnic group’.

However, in 1999, when the Caravan Act was repealed, this group lost all of its special rights. The repeal coincided with decentralization; municipalities and housing corporations became responsible for the caravan sites (de Zeeuw 2017, 27). In 2000, a report showed that there were 2,508 families on the waiting list for a pitch. This number increased to 3,200 in 2009 (Reuver 2009, 4–7). The fact that the housing shortage was insufficiently addressed came as no surprise. Municipalities were not too happy with their newfound responsibilities. This also applied to the housing corporations, who were expected to execute municipal policy. The reasons for their reluctance was a wish to not only integrate caravan dwellers into society, but instead turn them into house dwellers.¹ The municipalities and housing corporations were driven by a fear of intimidating behavior and criminality, thereby leading to the emergence of no-go areas.² This was followed by NIMBY behavior from house dwellers living nearby, as well as a lack of space and the high costs and low proceeds from caravan sites (Bergema 2015, 6). There were also more fundamental reasons – one encounters policy-makers who consider the Traveler culture to be an unsustainable relic of the past. Once the economic reasons for it have disappeared, only the lifestyle remains. They perceived that facilitating this more expensive form of subsidized housing is indefensible.³

Local administrators often perceived difficulties in dealing with Travelers, a reason for the municipalities to start employing private companies to run the caravan sites for them. One such company, Nijbod, is large; however, most of these companies are comprised of merely one contractor.⁴ In 2009, municipalities owned 66% of the caravan sites, whereas housing corporations owned 29%. Among them, 39% were run by the corporations, whereas 34% were run by a municipality, and 22% were run by a private company (VROM-Inspectie 2009, 6). A 2011 report placed the percentage of caravan sites managed by private organizations at 70% (Vos & Waardenburg 2012, 13, 24). The tasks housing corporations and municipalities had previously conducted by themselves had been assumed by private organizations instead, thus indicating that regular government services, some of whose officials feared intimidation have now often ceased visiting the caravan sites altogether.⁵ It is hardly surprising that this has significantly reinforced the distrust between Travelers and the local government.⁶

In 2006, reluctant municipalities received an important resource. In response to a mayor police raid at the caravan site ‘Vinkenslag’, which was considered a no-go area, the Ministry of Housing drew up a brochure for the municipalities, wherein five policies were described for dealing with caravan sites. The last two policies were aimed at eliminating the sites altogether (VROM-Inspectie 2006, 6–7; de Zeeuw 2017, 27–28). Therefore, the Ministry had legitimized phasing-out the sites, and numerous municipalities began implementing an ‘extinction policy’.⁷

Initially, this policy was not met with competent opposition. During the time when the housing shortage was mounting and many municipalities were phasing out caravan sites, the Travelers themselves were disorganized. Activism was primarily a local phenomenon,⁸ and even at this level, Travelers faced difficulties, in terms of organizing protests. Currently, however, there are three national Travelers’ organizations attempting to reverse the developments made over the past two decades: Travellers United, the Society for the Preservation of Traveler Culture, and the Dutch Association of Sinti, Roma and Travelers. The rise of social media has considerably facilitated their creation.⁹ It is noteworthy that non-Traveler activists and stakeholders were also involved in this process. The following section provides details about how this has not merely been an exercise of endogenous community development (see also Huijbers and Loven 2019).

ECRI, CERD, and ECHR

As the Travelers finally started to unite on a national level, they came across powerful allies. The European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), a human rights monitoring body of the Council of Europe, urged the Dutch national government to take responsibility for the Travelers as early as 2008. They noted that without central government interference, their disadvantaged position could not be repaired (ECRI 2008, 27; Schriemer 2009, 5–6; Verduyn et al. 2010, 7). Repeating this request in 2013, the ECRI also suggested that a sufficient amount of pitches must be provided. These were deemed necessary to preserve the Traveler culture (ECRI 2013, 11, 52–56; Dijkstra 2015, 19; de Zeeuw 2017, 44–45). In 2015, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), a United Nations committee that focuses on the elimination of racial discrimination, also asked for an increased number of pitches. A refusal to provide pitches would deny Travelers the right to live according to their own culture, thereby amounting to discrimination (CERD 2015, 4; van Duinen 2015).

Moreover, in a series of court rulings between 1996 and 2014 (1996 Buckley vs the UK, 2001 Chapman vs the UK, 2004 Connors vs the UK, 2013 Winterstein vs France, 2014 Yordanova vs Bulgaria), the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) gradually concluded that living in a caravan site, among one’s extended family, was part of the Traveler culture, and government had a positive obligation to allow Travelers to live according to their culture. This verdict is primarily based on Article 8 of the ECHR (Dijkstra 2015, 10–17; Huijbers 2015a; Donders 2016, 1–25).

CRM and PILP

Public Interest Litigation Project (PILP), which is part of the Dutch Section of the International Commission of Jurists, realized that the European court rulings provided grounds to defend the Travelers’ rights to pitches on the basis of human rights; something that had not been attempted in the Netherlands before. Prior court cases had referenced housing law (Huijbers 2015b). After the Travelers had begun procedures before the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (CRM), Jelle Klaas (the project leader) organized a meeting of Sinti, Roma, and Travelers, in conjunction with PILP.¹⁰

Since then, there have been many cases regarding Travelers appearing before the CRM (de Zeeuw 2017, 4). However, two cases in particular are noteworthy. In 2014, the CRM ruled that the ‘extinction policy’ of the municipality of Oss was contrary to human rights. A prior ruling, in 2006, declared that Travelers are a ‘race’ in the legal sense (Article 1 AWGB). Consequently, the CRM ruled that they were protected by Article 7a AWGB against illegal discrimination (College voor de Rechten van de Mens 2014; Bergema 2015, 7, 20). Subsequently, making Travelers wait longer for pitches, compared to those awaiting subsidized housing, was also considered a breach of Article 7a AWGB (College voor de Rechten van de Mens 2016). In 2016, another important milestone was reached, an organization of Travelers in the municipality of Gouda sued the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. The Ministry was held responsible for the brochure drawn up in 2006 by the Ministry of Housing for the municipalities. Among the five policies outlined in the brochure for dealing with caravan sites, the CRM ruled that the last two options were discriminatory because they also contradicted Article 7a AWGB (College voor de Rechten van de Mens 2017; de Zeeuw 2017, 44).¹¹

CRM rulings are not legally binding. The Traveler from Oss, who had won his case before the CRM, had to take it to court as well. His successful verdict was based on housing law, not human rights. The fact that CRM had ruled that municipal policy ran contrary to Article 7a AWGB in most cases did not necessarily compel the municipalities to alter their approach (Donders 2016, 2). Whenever the CRM ruled against a municipality, it sent the verdict on to the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, along with a letter urging it to take action. In such cases, the Ministry only forwarded the letter on to the municipalities, and urged them to fulfill the outlined verdict. However, once it had been ruled against by CRM itself, real change was initiated.¹²

The Ombudsman

During this time, the Dutch Association of Sinti, Roma and Travelers had also been busy. The association’s chairwoman, Sabina Achterbergh, had been quite active. She had organized actions locally, addressed meetings at the European and UN level, and founded the association a few years prior. In 2013, she addressed the Ombudsman. Travellers United, another Traveler organization, also played an important role in this (van Duinen 2016).¹³ The Ombudsman then opened an information line, receiving 112 complaints related to the shortage of pitches. In 2017, he ruled that Travelers had a specific cultural identity. Their basic human right to live according to their traditional culture had been recognized by European and international treaties over the past fifteen years and this recognition implied an imperative to provide a sufficient number of pitches. The Ombudsman also referred to the verdicts delivered by the CRM. However, he concluded that the municipalities lacked knowledge about this human rights framework, resulting in them treating Travelers similar to how they treated other inhabitants of the municipality. The Ombudsman declared that Travelers should receive unique treatment (i.e. the provision of pitches), thereby respecting their specific cultural demands. He also advised that the central government, should play an increasingly directive role, instead of avoiding interfering with municipal policy.

The Ombudsman then drew up several recommendations to counter the unwelcome situation. He advised that the central government deem one of the Secretaries of State responsible for the Travelers. He also suggested that the central government, together with the municipalities, should develop a vision regarding pitch policy, and take into account the international treaties related to the Travelers’ human rights. This necessitated changes in the 2006 brochure. The central government should ensure that municipalities acquire sufficient knowledge and understanding to deal with Travelers, and it should monitor the impact of government policy on the preservation of the Traveler cultural identity. The local government must appoint one alderman responsible for the Travelers’ human rights, and should discuss changes in pitch policy with the council. This policy should be in accordance with the Travelers’ cultural human rights; therefore, the need for pitches had to be identified and listed (Ombudsman 2017, 3–4, 10–15, 45–46). Finally, the Ombudsman sent his report to 283 municipalities and informed Travelers regarding the best methods to deal with reluctant municipalities (het Wiel 2017).

Heritage listing

In 2014, two Travelers – Piet van Assendorp and Jan Timmerman – took the initiative to put the Traveler culture on the Dutch national heritage list. On August 25th, before the CRM’s verdict on Oss, their initiative was met with success (Bergema 2015, 2). Several aspects of the Traveler lifestyle had been singled out for protection. The first aspect is their distinctive housing culture, which can only be maintained by living in a caravan. In recent times, the caravans have become so large that they cannot be moved anymore, even often lacking wheels. Nonetheless, they are considered to be unlike houses. Stringent rules of hygiene in the caravan are also mentioned; for instance, removing one’s shoes before entering. The second aspect is social cohesion: children are named after their grandparents, and an oral agreement is considered sacred. Travelers live in close proximity to their family, and visitors are invited to dinner. There are specific life-cycle rituals related to weddings, funerals, and the first communion. Moreover, one’s in-laws are regarded as fully fledged family members. Finally, the issue of employment is the fourth aspect: travelers are self-employed and do not work for bosses (Bergema 2015, 40).

A year after Van Assendorp and Timmerman had started the heritage listing process, they founded a society for the preservation of Traveler culture (Vereniging Behoud Woonwagencultuur In Nederland 2018). This society has emerged from a working group that had previously primarily existed on Facebook. Their most important aim was to counter the extinction policy that many municipalities were implementing (Bergema 2015, 28–30).

Heritage listing has also had a favorable side effect – it has served as a boost to the self-esteem of caravan dwellers. Many Travelers display the certificate that the Society for Preservation of Traveler Culture has received on their Facebook pages (Bergema 2015, 6–7, 21, 25, 27). Finally, they felt recognized by the wider society. They also often use it while contacting the municipalities, particularly while contending the lack of pitches (Bergema 2015, 25, 30).¹⁴

Not all Travelers were happy with the recognition of their culture, though. An intrinsic fear of ossification is sometimes palpable.¹⁵ Some interviewees believed that although listing may be important to the Travelers themselves, it had little consequence on local policy-making (see also Bergema 2015, 21).¹⁶

However, the CRM verdicts concerning Oss affirm that Travelers mentioned the listing as proof that they possess a unique culture. Two interviewees even claimed that these important verdicts, and the listing of the Traveler culture on the inventory of intangible heritage have reinforced each other (see also College voor de Rechten van de Mens 2014; Bergema 2015, 27; de Zeeuw 2017, 23).¹⁷ Bram van Duinen, who runs an important website providing Travelers with information regarding the legal aspects of caravan dwelling, believes that European and other international treaties provide their real ammunition. He perceives the heritage status as an argument that municipalities can use to counter NIMBY-citizens.¹⁸ This occurs in some municipalities, such as Neerijnen and Kerkrade (Rossel 2014; van Duinen 2014).¹⁹ Perhaps more important, is that the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations also takes the heritage status seriously.²⁰

The ministry of the interior and Kingdom relations

When the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations was ruled against by the CRM and reprimanded by the Ombudsman, the Ministry decided to reconsider Traveler policy, something it had neglected for nearly two decades. Now, faced with the task of determining how to support the municipalities in adjusting their policies to the Travelers’ cultural human rights, the Association of Netherlands Municipalities put a call on its website, inviting the municipalities to a meeting with itself and the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, to build an inventory of the dilemmas they were confronted with. Twenty-five municipalities responded, and on June 21st, 2017, the meeting was conducted (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations 2017).²¹

The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations decided to act in accordance with the Ombudsman’s recommendations, thus supporting the municipalities in adjusting their policies to the Travelers’ cultural human rights. The Ministry wrote a letter to the Ombudsman, wherein it also promised to start monitoring. The Minister for the Interior would be accountable for Traveler policy, and the Ministry would explain the human rights framework to the municipalities through a new brochure. The Ministry would also contact PILP and the national Travelers’ organizations to identify the problems (Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations 2017).²²

During two follow-up meetings, on October 4th and 12th, 2017, the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations outlined the new responsibilities of the municipalities. Both meetings started with a presentation by senior legal advisor Vital Moors, who discussed the international treaties and the national and international court rulings, which formed the basis of the new policies. He also underlined the fact that the Traveler culture had been officially heritage-listed, emphasizing that this indicated that the government had an obligation to protect it.²³ Similarly, in addition to discussions with municipalities, the Ministry also conducted meetings with CRM, PILP, and the Travelers’ organizations.²⁴

In 2018, the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations published a new brochure, informing the municipalities and the housing corporations of the policy change. The central government would decide on overall policy, monitor the developments, and report to parliament. The municipalities would remain responsible for local policy, which meant including caravan sites in their zoning plans. Phasing out pitches would no longer be permitted, particularly if there was a demand for them. Municipal policy was necessary to facilitate caravan dwelling; therefore, the demand for pitches needed to be mapped. Travelers looking for pitches needed to be able to find these within a reasonable period. Housing corporations were expected to provide the actual caravan sites; the Ministry was not in favor of private companies running them (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations 2018a).

The Ministry included a part of these measures in a brochure regarding anti-discrimination policies for the municipalities (Felten et al. 2018). On April 19th, 2018, the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations held a meeting with the municipalities to discuss the new policy framework regarding caravan sites. The municipalities did not oppose the Ministry; however, expressed concern regarding the reactions of the housing corporations and local politicians.²⁵ On July 12th, 2018, the framework was presented to parliament (Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations 2018; Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations 2018b). Notwithstanding the fact that on all levels of government actors had had trials and tribulations with the subject, it was evident that the developments of the twenty-first century were finally being reversed.

Conclusion

Travelers in the Netherlands have long been confronted with government interference, attempting to concentrate, disperse, re-educate, and drive them away. The most resounding effect thereof has been the emergence of a distinct Traveler identity. By registering Travelers, the government has transformed an otherwise loose and fleeting population of caravan dwellers into an ethnic group with a distinct culture.

Once the central government ended its interference, and stopped regarding them as a minority with clear cultural rights, the Travelers perceived that their specific way of life was being threatened. In particular, the local governments tended to perceive the Travelers as members of an underprivileged group whose ‘culture of poverty’ needed to be rectified by dispersing them into the general population. Until recently, an ‘extinction policy’ was carried out on many fronts in the Netherlands, with the goal being to gradually abolish caravan sites. Under these circumstances, Travelers rallied around instrumentalizing their government-created culture as heritage.

Was ‘creativity’ the primary driving factor that motivated the Dutch Travelers who aspired to have their heritage listed? Perhaps, but if so, then it was a special form of ‘creativity’. Having their culture listed served to boost the self-esteem of many Travelers; however, their negative social identity was not what was at stake. Preventing the extinction of an entire societal group with a distinct culture was the primary motivation.

Demanding heritage listing was not the only strategy the Travelers used to deter local governments from abolishing pitches. They also invoked international treaties, guaranteeing their cultural human rights, through both the Ombudsman and the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights. These two strategies proved to be decisive, with heritage listing clearly supporting them. To claim cultural human rights, one first needs to prove plausibly that they indeed possess a distinctive culture. Heritage listing substantiated their claim. Moreover, at all government levels, politicians and administrators were made aware of the official heritage status of the Traveler culture, which provided a valid argument for altering existing policies.

Does listing, as is often assumed, now pose a new threat to the Traveler culture it is supposed to protect? Does the culture face the risk of ossifying, now that its properties have been registered, as some heritage scholars have observed (Nas 2002; Logan 2008; Neyrinck 2017)? This is unlikely. Research regarding ossification has been conducted at the UNESCO level, but at the national and local level, little examination appears to have been carried out. However, a quick look at the Dutch national level shows that actors are aware of the problem. The National Inventory of Intangible Heritage departs from the notion of ‘dynamic heritage’, thus evolving over time and needing to adapt to changing contexts (KIEN 2018). Therefore, there is sufficient room for a dynamic and thriving traveler culture in the future. In this case, through creativity, general cultural practices have been redefined as formally-recognized heritage. Society at large, or its authorizing institutions, are compelled to recognize them as such. This has substantially contributed to the recognition and survival of the Travelers – a small but fine example of what can be achieved by acknowledging heritage as a human right (Escallon 2017; Human 2017). The triumph of this endeavor indicates the necessity to foresee and prepare for these procedures in future policy planning.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

F. P. Wagenaar

F. P. Wagenaar is an assistant professor at the Department of Political Science and Public Administration, VU University Amsterdam, and is interested in topics, such as the history of administration and the administration of history.

J. Rodenberg

J. Rodenberg is affiliated with the Department of Political Science and Public Administration, VU University Amsterdam, and is interested in heritage policy and decision-making.

Notes

1. Interview with the housing corporation, 10-5-2017.

2. Interview with the municipality, 4-5-2017.

3. Interview with the municipality, 31-3-2017.

4. Interview with Nijbod, 26-4-2017.

5. Interview with the municipality, 15-5-2017.

6. Interview with Travellers United, 6-5-2017.

7. Interview with barrister, 20-3-2017.

8. Interview with a journalist, 16-6-2017.

9. Interview with a journalist, 16-6-2017; E-mail from Bram van Duinen, 27-8-2018.

10. Interview with PILP, 29-3-2017.

11. Interview with former Gouda council member, 14-11-2017.

12. Interview with the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, 1-8-2017.

13. Interview with the Dutch Association of Sinti, Roma and Travelers, 10-6-2017; Interview with a former member of the Dutch Association of Sinti, Roma and Travelers, 7-6-2017.

14. Interview with KIEN, 6-3-2017; Interview with barrister 20-3-2017; Interview with Peter Jorna 17-3-2017; Interview with the Society for the Preservation of Traveler Culture, 7-3-2017; Interview with the municipality, 22-5-2017.

15. Interview with a former member of the Dutch Association of Sinti, Roma and Travelers, 7-6-2017; Observation of a conversation between a Traveler and a housing corporation, 6-6-2017.

16. For instance, interview with a journalist, 16-6-2017.

17. Interview with Nijbod, 26-4-2017; Interview with Peter Jorna, 17-3-2017.

18. Interview with Bram van Duinen, 20-3-2017.

19. Interview with the municipality, 15-5-2017; Interview with Andy Rossel, a politician on the Limburg provincial level for the Greens, 12-5-2017.

20. From Vital Moors’ PowerPoint sheets, as shown during the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations’ meetings with the municipalities on 4–10 and 12-10-2017.

21. Interview with the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, 12-7-2017; Interview with VNG, 23-6-2017.

22. Interview with the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, 1-8-2017.

23. Personal notes of meeting between the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and the municipalities on 4–10 and 12-10-2017.

24. E-mail from Bram van Duinen, 27-8-2018.

25. Personal notes of meeting between the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and the municipalities, 19-4-2018.