The Harms of Hate for Gypsies and

Travellers A Critical Hate Studies

Perspective Zoë James
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-harms-of-hate-for-gypsies-and-travellers-a-critical
-hate-studies-perspective-zoe-james/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The globalisation of hate : internationalising hate

crime? 1st Edition Schweppe

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-globalisation-of-hate-
internationalising-hate-crime-1st-edition-schweppe/

Online Hate Speech in the European Union A Discourse

Analytic Perspective 1st Edition Stavros Assimakopoulos

https://textbookfull.com/product/online-hate-speech-in-the-
european-union-a-discourse-analytic-perspective-1st-edition-
stavros-assimakopoulos/

Putting Faith in Hate When Religion Is the Source or

Target of Hate Speech Richard Moon

https://textbookfull.com/product/putting-faith-in-hate-when-
religion-is-the-source-or-target-of-hate-speech-richard-moon/

Hate Speech And Democratic Citizenship Eric Heinze

https://textbookfull.com/product/hate-speech-and-democratic-
citizenship-eric-heinze/
Summer 1945 Germany Japan and the Harvest of Hate
Thomas Goodrich

https://textbookfull.com/product/summer-1945-germany-japan-and-
the-harvest-of-hate-thomas-goodrich/

Hate Me 1st Edition Ashley Jade

https://textbookfull.com/product/hate-me-1st-edition-ashley-jade/

The Measurement of Hate Crimes in America Frank S.

Pezzella

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-measurement-of-hate-crimes-
in-america-frank-s-pezzella/

The Opposite of Hate A Field Guide to Repairing Our

Humanity First Edition Kohn

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-opposite-of-hate-a-field-
guide-to-repairing-our-humanity-first-edition-kohn/

Transphobic Hate Crime 1st Edition Joanna Jamel (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/transphobic-hate-crime-1st-
edition-joanna-jamel-auth/
PALGRAVE HATE STUDIES

The Harms of Hate

for Gypsies and
Travellers
A Critical Hate Studies
Perspective
Zoë James
 Palgrave Hate Studies

Series Editors
Neil Chakraborti
School of Criminology
University of Leicester
Leicester, UK

Barbara Perry
Faculty of Social Science and Humanities
University of Ontario
Oshawa, ON, Canada
This series builds on recent developments in the broad and interdisci-
plinary field of hate studies. Palgrave Hate Studies aims to bring together
in one series the very best scholars who are conducting hate studies
research around the world. Reflecting the range and depth of research
and scholarship in this burgeoning area, the series welcomes contribu-
tions from established hate studies researchers who have helped to shape
the field, as well as new scholars who are building on this tradition and
breaking new ground within and outside the existing canon of hate studies
research.

Editorial Advisory Board

Tore Bjorgo (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs)
Jon Garland (University of Surrey)
Nathan Hall (University of Portsmouth)
Gail Mason (University of Sydney)
Jack McDevitt (Northeastern University)
Scott Poynting (The University of Auckland)
Mark Walters (University of Sussex)

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14695
 Zoë James

The Harms of Hate

for Gypsies
and Travellers
A Critical Hate Studies Perspective
Zoë James
University of Plymouth
Plymouth, Devon, UK

Palgrave Hate Studies

ISBN 978-1-137-51828-6 ISBN 978-1-137-51829-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-51829-3

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Acknowledgments

This book, though relatively brief, has been a long time in coming.
Firstly I must thank the Gypsies and Travellers who have worked with me
over many years and who have always been kind and generous enough to
talk candidly to me of their experiences. I would like to thank the book
series editors and Palgrave for their patience. At work I need to thank
Oliver, and Tom who took an old(ish) academic on a new journey that
was great. Thank you to Katie, who does so much for me and excels
me already, though is only at the start. Thank you to my mum and
Brov, who are always there for me and my amazing sister who is always
listening. Thank you to our best friends Emma and Rich who have kept
us going through the pandemic, we will be back in the vans soon I hope.
Finally I want to thank my brilliant family, Ady and Rex, who give me
my basecamp and inspiration, and Chyp who took me for walks.

v
 Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 History and Identity 15

3 Hate Harms 39

4 Thinking Critically About Hate 69

5 Conclusion 95

Bibliography 105

Index 121

vii
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Abstract This chapter introduces readers to the key issues raised by the
book and orients the reader to the social position of Gypsies and Trav-
ellers as problematised, and subsequently controlled, peoples. The chapter
discusses some of the key concepts used throughout the book and gives
a breakdown of the forthcoming chapters.

Keywords Hate harms · Marginalisation · Control · Space and place

As I write, in Spring 2020, the world is experiencing a pandemic. The

coronavirus, COVID-19, has spread across the globe at an exponential
rate, resulting in a momentary pause of all aspects of daily life. For the
wealthy, that pause constitutes a moment for retreat and reflection, for
the planet to heal and for families to reconnect. The romanticism of
this perspective belies the tragedies unfolding across nation states as the
poor and socially excluded are hardest hit by the virus, including Gypsies,
Travellers and Roma (Council of Europe 2020). The principle mecha-
nism used to control the virus at this stage has been the ‘lockdown’ of
people into their homes in order to manage its spread, protect health
services from being overwhelmed and to ‘shield’ those most vulnerable
who have underlying medical conditions. People are expected to keep a
‘social distance’ from each other, which actually means keeping a physical

© The Author(s) 2020 1

Z. James, The Harms of Hate for Gypsies and Travellers,
Palgrave Hate Studies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-51829-3_1
2 Z. JAMES

distance in public space, with no family gatherings, meeting of friends,

etc. And those who become sick are required to isolate themselves, even
within their households. For Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, who often
live in poverty and whose accommodation is commonly overcrowded,
these circumstances are worrying at best, and potentially life threat-
ening. Gypsies, Travellers and Roma have the poorest health and welfare
outcomes of any minority communities across Europe, as acknowledged
by the European Commission (2019) and the United Nations (2015).
The prejudice and discrimination they face in their everyday lives means
that they are rarely effectively supported by health and welfare agencies,
nor are they acknowledged as worthy of support from, or as part of,
their local settled communities. Even in these relatively early days of the
pandemic it is becoming evident that Gypsies, Travellers and Roma have
been scapegoated for the spread of the virus, their needs have not been
met, and their communities are at heightened risk of the virus itself or
lack of service provision in the wake of the virus uptake on health services
(Rorke 2020).
This book intends to explore the nature of hate harms in contem-
porary society, and in doing so it will illuminate how we have arrived
at a situation wherein the most marginalised in society are subject to
the vagaries of a global pandemic. I will argue here that the harms of
hate reach further than is traditionally considered within hate studies
literature. The book moves beyond the criminal justice framework that
addresses hate crime, while also acknowledging the capacity of such legal
and policy responses to challenge the extremities of hate behaviours. The
book will consider the breadth of hate harms that Gypsies, Travellers and
Roma experience, including how bias-motivated discrimination and prej-
udice have resulted in their social, economic and political exclusion. It
will conclude by considering the exacerbation of Gypsies’, Travellers’ and
Roma exclusion and vilification by the nature of contemporary society
that celebrates individualism over community and the instant gratification
of the self over the social support of all in society.

Controlling Gypsies and Travellers

On the 19 October 2011, just after dawn, over a hundred police officers
dressed in full riot gear and carrying protective shields marched across
a field in Essex, England on their way to facilitate the eviction of the
illegal Dale Farm Traveller site. Police officers used axes to break down a
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

fence at the rear of the site in order to gain entry and then faced violent
clashes with Travellers and protesters within the site as they went through
the six acre plot of land to make way for bailiffs to clear the site. Tasers
were deployed by the police on two occasions during the initial skirmish
to enter the Traveller site. By midday however, the bailiffs were able to
enter the site and the focus of police attention was on the removal of
protestors from a high scaffold tower that had been constructed at the
entrance to the site in an effort to prevent eviction occurring. In scenes
reminiscent of the English environmental protest evictions at Twyford
Down and Newbury in the 1990s, protesters and Travellers were coaxed,
requested and forced out of their makeshift gantry by police officers and
bailiffs who used cherry pickers to access them. In the late afternoon of
the 20th October, the final Travellers and protesters walked away from the
Dale Farm site following a group decision to leave. Thirty four arrests had
taken place over two days, largely for public order offences and breach
of the peace. After ten years of legal wrangling, during which time the
Travellers had fought to live on the site which they owned, but for which
they had not attained planning permission, the fight for the Dale Farm
site, reported to be the largest illegal site in Europe, appeared to be over.
This clash between the police and Travellers epitomises the contem-
porary fears of Gypsies and Travellers throughout the United Kingdom
(UK). Evictions of sites are rarely so complex, high profile and resource
intensive, but they are common and problematic in the UK and for Roma
internationally (Home 2012). Notwithstanding the previous history of
prejudice, discrimination and racism experienced by Gypsies, Travellers
and Roma via state and non-state violence that has subjugated their
communities over centuries throughout Europe (Acton, Rostas and
Ryder 2014; Alliance Against Anti-Gypsyism 2016), there have been
numerous occasions in the post-war era in the UK when similarly extreme
tactics to those used at Dale Farm have been used to move Gypsies and
Travellers on and away from particular places and spaces, and the collec-
tive memory of them remains an integral part of Gypsies’ and Travellers’
cultural knowledge and identity. The notion that such communities can
be subject to state-sponsored force through eviction affirms their historic
lack of confidence in police, local authorities and state apparatus. The
control of Gypsies and Travellers in the late twentieth and early twenty-
first centuries has not happened solely through forced eviction however,
despite its prominence within communities’ psyches. Gypsies and Trav-
ellers are ‘policed’ within a breadth of contexts and by multiple agencies.
4 Z. JAMES

Akin to other minority communities, Gypsies and Travellers have been

over-policed as offenders and under-policed as victims. Their criminalisa-
tion has occurred due to the complex interaction of social forces that have
embedded prejudiced attitudes towards them in contemporary society
and which harmfully impacts their daily lives. Throughout the course of
this book I will outline the numerous ways that Gypsies and Travellers in
the UK experience the harms of their criminalisation and victimisation as
hate and subsequently how they interact with the state, its agencies and
settled society generally.
In real terms, Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experiences of criminalisation are
rarely as dramatic as the Dale Farm eviction (Reiner 2010); it is the poten-
tial for such criminal justice interventions, and community memories of
them, that informs the fears of Gypsies and Travellers. The bulk of the
story to be told here requires a consideration of how Gypsies and Trav-
ellers experience daily life under the gaze of a prejudiced society: when
they are moving from one place to the next; when they try to estab-
lish a base for themselves with planning authorities; when they want to
attain appropriate education for their children; or, when they are unwell
and need to visit a doctor. This book therefore utilises the notion of
harm to understand the multiple ways in which Gypsies and Travellers
are impacted by anti-Gypsyism, or Romaphobia that is the prejudice
embedded in their lived experience (see for example, McGarry 2017;
Alliance Against Anti-Gypsyism 2016). Further, this book considers how
Gypsies and Travellers are socially controlled by using Donzelot’s (1997)
concept of ‘policing’ that allows a consideration of the roles of multiple
agencies in the management of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lives. Indeed,
their lives are ‘managed’ because their communities are largely prob-
lematised by agencies that are unsure how to address their needs or
concerns, despite extensive national and international pressure for inclu-
sion for Gypsies and Travellers (European Commission 2019). In 2011
the European Union set out a Framework for the social and economic
inclusion of Roma (including Gypsies and Travellers in the UK) in Europe
by 2020. The Framework recognised that Gypsies, Travellers and Roma
had extremely poor outcomes in education, health and welfare across the
member states. In 2010 the Organisation for Security and Co-operation
in Europe produced a report on the policing of Roma in Europe (OSCE
2010). The report stated that Gypsies, Travellers and Roma were being
discriminated against by multiple agencies and that their voices were
not being heard as victims. The capacity of European Union policies
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

to address the marginalisation of Roma and/or to actually augment it

has been scrutinised by scholars comprehensively elsewhere (Kóczé 2018;
Yildiz and De Genova 2018). The point here is to note that there has
been pressure within Europe to address the problematisation of Gypsies,
Travellers and Roma and acknowledgment of the failure of agencies to
effectively engage with them, but little change in their lived experience.
There are two issues which are traditionally considered as underpinning
Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experiences of marginalisation in society, both of
which will be addressed discretely in later chapters of this book, but are
worthy of mention here. The first has caused me problems throughout
writing these initial sentences to frame the context for this book: identity.
I have utilised the titles of ‘Gypsy’, ‘Traveller’ and ‘Roma’ in an effort to
encapsulate all those people across Europe whose identity is based on a
Roma tradition, heritage and/or a travelling lifestyle. But these titles are
insufficient to wholly represent the diverse range of peoples I intend to
refer to. In European policy and documentation the tendency has become
to refer to all Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, as simply ‘Roma’ (Liegeois
1994) with the aim of being entirely inclusionary, though it has been
increasingly recognised that the core commonality of Roma in Europe has
been the otherness imposed on them through racialised discourse (Kóczé
2018). However, in the UK the inclination is to distinguish between
European Roma and other Gypsies and Travellers. Although there are
commonalities among these communities for various reasons, largely due
to their historic marginalisation, their ways of living vary, particularly their
choice of home. In the UK, Gypsies and Travellers are commonly associ-
ated with mobility and nomadism, whereas European Roma are perceived
as settled people (though they are stigmatised as migrants when they are
mobile). The intention of this book is to consider the hate harms expe-
rienced by Gypsies and Travellers in some depth and in doing so my
focus must intentionally be on a particular area that I may claim some
knowledge of. Therefore, the discussion throughout will largely focus on
Gypsies and Travellers in the UK. However, the book does provide some
reflection on the comparative position of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in
Europe whose experiences of social harm bare some similarity to those in
the UK.
Despite a comprehensive diversity agenda in most European countries
and expectations of agencies to embrace multiculturalism, the ability of
society and those agencies to effectively embrace these policies is ques-
tionable and academic debate on them is lively. Gypsy and Traveller
6 Z. JAMES

identities have often been devolved in this context to specific racialised

(Murji 2017) or nationalised groupings that can result in further exclu-
sion of those who do not fit within such criteria, such as New Travellers
in the UK (James 2005). In exploring the hate harms experienced by
Gypsies and Travellers, it is necessary to consider how identity is formed
and framed, how different aspects of identity intersect, and how the
politics of identity have affected the lived experience of Gypsies and Trav-
ellers. The impact of racism on Gypsies and Travellers, and Roma, is
well documented (for example, McGarry 2017; Okely 2014; Frazer and
Marlier 2011). Their abhorrent treatment as a consequence of biologi-
cally determinist fascist policy and practice in many European countries
in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has commonly meant the deci-
mation of Roma culture and oppressive treatment that has placed Roma
in often abject circumstances (see for example, Alliance Against Anti-
Gypsyism 2016; Achim 2004). Gypsies and Travellers in the UK have
been historically associated with vagrancy, crime and criminality (Taylor
2014) and public perceptions of them are more negative than towards
any other minority communities (Pew Research Center 2014; Abrams
et al. 2018). Using Žižek’s (2008) framework of violence, this book
will consider how direct, subjective harms of hate have manifested in this
context in contemporary late modernity as physical and verbal hateful
behaviours. It will consider how the systemic hate harms of prejudice and
discrimination have generated and driven subjective hate by exploring
state and private agencies responses to Gypsies and Travellers and civil
society support for them. And further, the book will address how symbolic
hate harms perpetuated through language, discourse and ideologies have
been engendered by the late modern political economic norm of neolib-
eral capitalism which pitches people against each other in a competitive
milieu, driven by consumerism and individualism.
The exclusion, stigmatisation and marginalisation of Gypsies and Trav-
ellers in the UK has traditionally been perceived as underpinned by their
lack of legitimate, culturally appropriate places to live. The nomadic
roots of many Gypsy and Traveller communities place their culture in
a different conceptual space to other settled communities. While settled
western culture enjoys dramatic images of nomads, such as the Bedouin
throwing up exotic tents in the desert, there is little space provided
for nomadic living or identity in the UK other than through the pages
of National Geographic magazine. Gypsies and Travellers experience
marginalisation throughout the UK because they are limited in where
 1 INTRODUCTION 7

they can legitimately live. Even when Gypsies and Travellers live settled
lifestyles, their cultural nomadism, that is part of their heritage, sets them
apart (Kabachnik 2009). Contemporary western society developed, and
is largely maintained, by the creation of boundaries or territories. As
Giddens (1985) notes, the creation of the nation state provided the
origins of definitive boundaries with geographically drawn lines as ‘bor-
ders’. Further, industrial capitalism functioned by localising a flexible
workforce, so physical space was divided into residential areas surrounding
working areas in urban and rural settings. Likewise, settled people tended
to perceive space in time as divided between ‘work’ and ‘home’, each
commonly separated by our perception of how time was used and where
we used it. The boundary setting of settled industrial capitalism remains
encapsulated in the creation of laws that enforce boundaries, particu-
larly the boundary of property and land ownership. Since the private
Enclosure Acts of the eighteenth century, land has been bounded in the
interests of land owners and the sedentary principles of the new indus-
trial order (Kemp 1978). Land ownership is valued within legal statute,
whereas rights of access to land are not (Bancroft 2000). Gypsies’ and
Travellers’ commitment to a nomadic lifestyle, be that via mobility or
culture, has not equated with the bounded nature of industrial capi-
talist social norms and ideals that have been enshrined in law and culture
throughout Western Europe (Yildiz and De Genova 2018). Interestingly,
as will be seen later in this book, Gypsies and Travellers have sometimes
conformed to the contemporary neoliberal capitalist ideal of the flexible
liberal entrepreneur, but the law of land ownership, that remains the
foundation of the legal system and its associated protection of heredi-
tary wealth, confines their mobility and their nomadic cultures that have
facilitated their entrepreneurial spirit.
Gypsies and Travellers in the UK have been in a constant battle to iden-
tify space for themselves where they can stop and stay or move on from,
particularly since the closure of common land by the Caravan Sites and
Control of Development Act 1960. The lack of legitimate space provided
to Gypsies and Travellers by state mechanisms, means that they have often
occupied spaces that are inappropriate or insufficient to their needs or
they have settled in to housing and hidden their identities for fear of
the racism its cognisance engenders (Okely 2014). Policing agencies have
then been required to ‘deal with’ Gypsies and Travellers who have been
perceived as breaking the boundaries of acceptable use of space and place.
Such boundaries may be physical barriers to land on which Gypsies and
8 Z. JAMES

Travellers have settled illegally, or regulatory barriers which require them

to gain planning permission, place their children in education or effec-
tively access health care for example. Policing agencies act then to control
Gypsies and Travellers as much as possible, as they perceive Gypsies and
Travellers as innately disordinate. That control often manifests itself as
providing care to communities while it actually aims to assimilate them
into a settled lifestyle that fails to recognise their cultural nomadic tradi-
tion. Gypsies and Travellers therefore exist at the nexus between care
and control that has been characterised as an environment of ‘benevolent
control’ (Moore 2011: 267). Gypsies and Travellers have been required
to conform to settled societies’ notion of a ‘normal’ lifestyle: from living
within fixed accommodation that is made of ‘bricks and mortar’ (Green-
fields 2006) to aspiring to the individualist consumerist principles of
neoliberal capitalism.
This book considers how Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lived experiences of
hate harms in society are informed by racialised perceptions of their iden-
tities and their lack of access to culturally appropriate accommodation.
However, the book moves beyond these traditional precepts to appre-
ciate how the identities and accommodation of Gypsies and Travellers are
administered within neoliberal capitalism in late modernity (Kóczé 2018).
Neoliberal capitalism has been identified by theorists (Harvey 2005;
Davies 2017) as encapsulated by a culture of individualism, competitive-
ness, meritocracy and relative deprivation. In this environment, resources
are distributed upwards in the social hierarchy under the false premise
that everyone, including socially excluded communities such as Gypsies
and Travellers will benefit from the trickle down of the wealth created.
Aligned with this, neoliberal capitalist responsibilisation, teamed with
deregulation and withdrawal of the state, has resulted in an environ-
ment in which judgement and regulation of others is encouraged (Harvey
2005, 2011; Dardot and Laval 2017; Davies 2017). By using a critical
hate studies perspective (James and McBride 2018) to identify and analyse
the social harms experienced by Gypsies and Travellers, this book is able
to effectively engage with the lived experiences of those communities in
contemporary society.
The critical hate studies perspective, as set out in Chapter 4, uses
ultra-realist theory (Hall and Winlow 2015) to appreciate the relation-
ship between neoliberal capitalism and other structures of power in
late modern society. In doing so, the perspective is able to discuss the
complexity of subjective, systemic and symbolic hate harms experienced
 1 INTRODUCTION 9

by Gypsies and Travellers. The harms of hate for Gypsies and Travellers
cannot be reduced to the subjective teleological racist outbursts of indi-
viduals such as physical attacks committed by far-right followers. While
such attacks certainly constitute hate crimes as defined by legal statute,
the evidence presented here is that the harm of such hate does not
represent the overarching experience of hate for Gypsies and Travellers.
The research here identifies that Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experiences
of systemic discrimination and prejudice is equally harmful to them.
When they are refused entry to legitimate spaces and places, over-policed
as offenders and under-policed as victims (among many other things)
Gypsies and Travellers experience hate. Often the discrimination and
prejudice Gypsies and Travellers experience in their daily lives consti-
tute minor incivilities, banal comments or negation of their identity. No
matter how small or apparently inconsequential these experiences are (or
how much Gypsies and Travellers appear to accept them) they impact
significantly on Gypsies’ and Travellers’ individual subjectivity and their
communities’ identities. The fear, frustration and anger that those people
and their communities feel as a consequence of systemic hate harms
results in defensive attitudes and behaviours and the creation of discrete
boundary setting between Gypsies and Travellers and settled communi-
ties by Gypsies and Travellers themselves (Marcus 2019). The harms of
hate do not stop there though. Gypsies and Travellers experience cogni-
tive dissonance as their identities are culturally bounded through this
defence, while they are expected to live according to the norms of neolib-
eral capitalism. So, as Heaslip et al.’s (2016) research has shown, Gypsies
and Travellers feel torn between upholding their traditional identities and
associated values that have strengthened in response to experiences of
discrimination and prejudice and their desire to live according to the
norms of neoliberal capitalism, including moving beyond traditionally
bound concepts of gender, sexuality, work and lifestyle. This constitutes
a symbolic hate harm.

The Basis of the Book

This book represents the culmination of my research and scholarly enter-
prise with Gypsies, Travellers and Roma over the last twenty five years. As
a Research Officer at the Home Office in the early 1990s I carried out
research on the policing of the public order provisions of the Criminal
Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which included new trespass offences
10 Z. JAMES

that impacted on Gypsies and Travellers lives. I went on to complete

my Ph.D. at the University of Surrey on the policing of New Travellers
prior to my appointment at the University of Plymouth where I am now
an Associate Professor. I have completed a number of research projects
with Gypsies and Travellers that were funded by a range of agencies,
including the British Academy, Local Authorities, the Department for
Communities and Local Government and most recently the Economic
and Social Research Council. That research has explored the manage-
ment and control of Gypsies and Travellers, provision of accommodation,
their mobility and cultural nomadism and their experiences of hate crimes,
incidents and increasingly the harms of hate.
My journey to engage with Gypsies and Travellers and to facilitate their
voices has been a wholly enlightening one. My original research with New
Travellers was predicated on personal interest, as is so much research, due
to a family member living as a New Traveller. However, I have never
lived as a Traveller, nor have I any Gypsy or Traveller heritage. I do
appear to have a strong sense of justice however, and this, coupled with an
undergraduate degree in Sociology, led me to have an early inclination to
challenge prejudice and discrimination. I am also extremely stubborn, and
so, when I was informed as an early career researcher by a much older,
experienced academic in Romani Studies (also a non-Gypsy/Traveller)
that I would not be able to continue my research career due to my lack of
Gypsy ancestry and my interest in New Travellers, I became determined
to do just that. I have carried out research with Gypsies and Travellers
through a range of academic enquiries, both qualitative and quantitative.
Largely my research has been qualitative in nature however, its emphasis
has been on ensuring the development of a ‘minority perspective’ (Phillips
and Bowling 2008) with Gypsies and Travellers. All of this research has
been completed with the full support of the communities with whom I
have worked. I have been fortunate enough to have worked with Gypsies
and Travellers from all walks of life, who have told me their stories in great
detail and trusted me to convey them so that their voices could be heard. I
hope that the developing generation of Gypsy and Traveller academics will
soon usurp me in building an appreciation and understanding of Gypsies’
and Travellers’ lived experience within criminology and hate studies.
This book then provides an analysis of the harms of hate for Gypsies
and Travellers, as based on these research experiences outlined. The
evidence drawn on in these chapters has been ascertained from my own
research, completed with full ethical consideration and approval and is
 1 INTRODUCTION 11

informed by research completed by esteemed colleagues in Gypsy and

Traveller studies, and Gypsy and Traveller support organisations. Further,
I draw here on a comprehensive review of literature from across the social
sciences and particularly within criminology.

Outline of the Book

Informed by a critical realist approach to research (Bhaskar 1998) I have
endeavoured here to set out my discussion of Gypsies’ and Travellers’
experiences of hate by considering what we already know about hate
against Gypsies and Travellers (the empirical), the hate harms my research
has identified (the actual), and how we can better understand those hate
harms through a critical lens (the real). In order to do this the chapters
are as follows.
Chapter 2, History and Identity, sets out the history of Gypsies and
Travellers in the UK. It specifically focuses on the identities of Gypsies and
Travellers as multiple and heterogeneous, lived according to traditions of
cultural nomadism that have framed their negative experiences of accom-
modation provision, particularly in the late twentieth and early twenty-
first centuries. The chapter provides an account of the variable ways in
which Gypsies and Travellers have experienced processes of nomadisa-
tion and racialisation that have ultimately created a distinction between
Gypsies and Travellers and settled society and reinforced stereotypes of
Gypsies and Travellers as either exotic curios or villainous strangers. In
presenting the history and identities of Gypsies and Travellers this chapter
is able to provide context for the reader on what we already know
about the exclusion of Gypsies and Travellers in contemporary society
and existing tensions between them and settled communities.
Chapter 3, Hate Harms, depicts the extensive hate harms that Gypsies’
and Travellers’ experience in late modernity. In order to extrapolate these
harms I have used Žižek’s (2008) framework of violence to define hate
harms according to their experiential subjectivity or objectivity. There-
fore, the chapter initially identifies the subjective hate harms experienced
by Gypsies and Travellers that are clearly identifiable and include hate
speech, incidents and crimes. I then go on to discuss objectively expe-
rienced hate harms that are systemic and symbolic. Systemic hate harms
that Gypsies and Travellers have suffered constitute discrimination, social
and economic exclusion, and criminalisation, while symbolic hate harms
are those embedded within the discourse of neoliberal capitalism. The
12 Z. JAMES

chapter thus is able to provide space to the breadth of hate harms Gypsies’
and Travellers’ experience that are rarely perceived discretely.
Chapter 4, Thinking Critically About Hate, draws together the find-
ings from the previous two chapters to provide some explanation for the
hate harms embedded within Gypsies’ and Travellers’ daily lives. In doing
so it utilises a critical hate studies approach to understanding hate in
contemporary society which, in turn, is informed by ultra-realist crimi-
nology. By taking this approach the chapter is able to consider some of
the impacts of hate harms on the social and personal identities of Gypsies
and Travellers that are largely unseen or not considered in light of the
neoliberal capitalist norms that exacerbate and inform them. This chapter
therefore begins to challenge our existing perceptions of hate in contem-
porary society and identifies the need to consider how harm manifests in
the lived experience.
Finally, the book concludes by reviewing the overarching story told
throughout its pages. It identifies the core issues raised in the book as
a consequence of applying a harm-focused lens to appreciate the hate
experienced by Gypsies and Travellers.

References
Abrams, D., Swift, H., & Houston, D. (2018). Developing a National Barometer
of Prejudice and Discrimination in Britain. London: Equality and Human
Rights Commission.
Achim, V. (2004). Roma in Romanian History. Budapest: Central European
University Press.
Acton, T., Rostas, I., & Ryder, A. (2014). The Roma in Europe: Mechanisms
of Power and Social Justice. In A. Ryder, S. Cemlyn, & A. Acton (Eds.),
Hearing the voice of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Communities. Bristol: Policy
Press.
Alliance Against Anti-Gypsyism. (2016). Anti-Gypsyism – A Reference Paper.
Available at: www.antigysyism.eu. Accessed on: 17/04/17.
Bancroft, A. (2000). ‘No Interest in Land’: Legal and Spatial Enclosure of Gypsy-
Travellers in Britain. Space and Polity, 4, 41–56.
Bhaskar, R. (1998). Philosophy and Scientific Realism. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar,
A. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norries (Eds.), Critical Realism: Essential
Readings. Abingdon: Routledge.
Council of Europe. (2020). 8 April International Roma Day: Step Up Human
Rights Protection for Roma and Guarantee Their Access to Vital Services
During COVID-19 Pandemic. Joint Statement by Marija Pejčinović Burić,
 1 INTRODUCTION 13

Secretary General of the Council of Europe, and Helena Dalli, European

Commissioner for Equality. Accessed at: https://search.coe.int/directorate_
of_communications/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016809e
1d95#globalcontainer. Accessed on: 09/04/20.
Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2017). The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society.
London: Verso.
Davies, W. (2017). The Limits of Neoliberalism. London: Sage.
Donzelot, J. (1997). The Policing of Families. London: The John Hopkins Press.
European Commission. (2019). Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament and the Council: Report on the Implementation of
National Roma Integration Strategies—2019. Accessed at: https://eur-lex.eur
opa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0406. Accessed on:
09/04/20.
Frazer, H., & Marlier, E. (2011). Promoting the Social Inclusion of Roma. EU:
Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.
Giddens, A. (1985). A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Greenfields, M. (2006). Gypsies, Travellers and Legal Matters. In C. Clark &
M. Greenfields (Eds.), Here to Stay: The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain.
Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press.
Hall, S., & Winlow, S. (2015). Revitalizing Criminological Theory: Towards a
New Ultra-Realism. London: Routledge.
Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Harvey, D. (2011). The Enigma of Capital: And the Crisis of Capitalism.
London: Profile.
Heaslip, V., Hean, S., & Parker, J. (2016). Lived Experience of Vulnera-
bility from a Gypsy Roma Traveller Perspective. Journal of Clinical Nursing.
https://doi.org/10.111/jocn.13223.
Home, R. (2012). Forced Eviction and Planning Enforcement: The Dale Farm
Gypsies. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 4(3), 178–
188.
James, Z. (2005). Eliminating Communities? Exploring the Implications of
Policing Methods Used to Manage New Travellers. International Journal of
the Sociology of Law, 33, 159–168.
James, Z., & McBride, K. (2018, December 4–7). Critical Hate Studies: A Theo-
retical Perspective. In Australia and New Zealand Criminology Conference.
Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne.
Kabachnik, P. (2009). To Choose, Fix or Ignore Culture? The Cultural Politics
of Gypsy and Traveller Mobility in England. Social and Cultural Geography,
10(4), 461–479.
Kemp, T. (1978). Historical Patterns of Industrialization. Harlow: Longman.
14 Z. JAMES

Kóczé, A. (2018). Race, Migration and Neoliberalism: Distorted Notions of

Romani Migration in European Public Discourses. Social Identities, 24(4),
459–473.
Liegeois, J.-P. (1994). Roma, Gypsies, Travellers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Marcus, G. (2019). Gypsy and Traveller Girls: Silence, Agency and Power. Cham:
Palgrave Macmillan.
McGarry, A. (2017). Romaphobia: The Last Acceptable Form of Racism. London:
Zed Books.
Moore, D. (2011). The Benevolent Watch: Therapeutic Surveillance in Drug
Treatment Court. Theoretical Criminology, 15(3), 255–268.
Murji, K. (2017). Racism, Policy and Politics. Bristol: Policy Press.
Okely, J. (2014). Recycled (mis)representations: Gypsies, Travellers and Roma
Treated as Objects, Rarely Subjects. People, Place and Policy, 8(1), 65–85.
OSCE. (2010). Police and Roma and Sinti: Good Practices in Building Trust and
Understanding. Vienna: OSCE.
Pew Research Center. (2014). A Fragile Rebound for EU Image on Eve of
European Parliament Elections. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Phillips, C., & Bowling, B. (2008). Racism, Ethnicity and Criminology: Devel-
oping Minority Perspectives. In B. Spalek (Ed.), Ethnicity and Crime: A
Reader. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Reiner, R. (2010). The Politics of the Police. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rorke, B. (2020). Inequality, Anti-Roma Racism, and the Coronavirus. EUOb-
server. Accessed at: https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/147759. Accessed
on: 01/04/20.
Taylor, B. (2014). Another Darkness, Another Dawn: A History of Gypsies, Roma
and Travellers. London: Reaktion Books.
United Nations. (2015). Report of the Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, Rita
Izsák. United Nations.
Yildiz, C., & De Genova, N. (2018). Un/Free Mobility: Roma Migrants in the
European Union. Social Identities, 24(4), 425–441.
Žižek, S. (2008). Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. New York: Picador.
 CHAPTER 2

History and Identity

Abstract This chapter provides a historical account of Gypsies’ and Trav-

ellers’ lives in the UK in the late modern period in order to contextualise
the subsequent chapters. In providing that context the chapter addresses
how existing legislation and research frames Gypsies’ and Travellers’ iden-
tities in terms of their cultural nomadism and ascribed ethnicity. The
chapter identifies who the Gypsies and Travellers are that live in the UK
in the twenty-first century.

Keywords Mobility · Accommodation · Culture and identity ·

Race and ethnicity

This chapter sets out existing accounts of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lives
in the UK in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries in order
to contextualise their experiences of hate harms by framing the tension
that exists between Gypsies and Travellers and wider settled society. The
chapter initially addresses the culturally nomadic nature of Gypsies’ and
Travellers’ lives in the UK and how their propensity to nomadism has
been perceived and used as a mechanism to set them apart from sedentary
society. It then goes on to consider how processes of racialisation (Murji
2017) have informed their experiences and the treatment of Gypsies and
Travellers by non-Gypsies/Travellers. Subsequently the chapter identifies

© The Author(s) 2020 15

Z. James, The Harms of Hate for Gypsies and Travellers,
Palgrave Hate Studies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-51829-3_2
16 Z. JAMES

some of the key issues that research has evidenced as negatively impacting
Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lives, specifically focusing on their capacity to
access accommodation. In order to understand Gypsies’ and Travellers’
lived experience of hate it is necessary initially to traverse this existing
knowledge, to take account of the problematisation of Gypsies and Trav-
ellers within UK society. Detailed accounts of Gypsies and Travellers lives
are available elsewhere (for example, Okely 1983; Fraser 1992; Power
2004; Clark and Greenfields 2006). However, in order to consider how
and why Gypsies and Travellers have been marginalised, socially and
economically excluded, and subject to hate, it is necessary to understand
the variable nature of Gypsy and Traveller communities and lifestyles, how
they interact and conflict with wider society and each other.
Gypsies and Travellers have long been considered atavistic ‘folk devils’
in a modernising society (Cohen 1972; Richardson 2006). In the nine-
teenth century they were referred to as ‘vagabonds’, considered feckless
vagrants, and numerous laws were passed in the UK to limit their move-
ment and prevent them from camping on their traditional Atchin Tans
or stopping places (Firth 2013). The development of multiculturalism
in contemporary society and its accompanying liberal ethos largely failed
to provide inclusion for Gypsies and Travellers (van Baar 2011), who
Cemlyn et al. (2009) described, in their comprehensive review of Gypsy
and Traveller experiences of inequality, as the most socially excluded
minority in the UK. As in the nineteenth century, in the twenty-first-
century Gypsies and Travellers remain subject to legislation that has
limited their freedom of movement or ability to stop and stay in any
one location temporarily or permanently. And while it would appear
that contemporary equalities legislation has gone some way to facilitate
inclusivity, the complexity of defining Gypsy or Traveller identity in law
belies those gains (James and Southern 2019). If the concept of ‘iden-
tity’ in late modern usage can be bisected into the personal and the
social (Moran 2015), so the prejudice and exclusion Gypsies and Trav-
ellers have suffered is likewise twofold. Later in the book, at Chapter 4,
I will consider how hate has affected Gypsies’ and Travellers’ personal
identities—that is their individual subjectivity, as a consequence of the
harmful production of their social identities, that are the identities that
they have been ascribed to and/or that they ascribe themselves to. Here I
will set out how the social identity of Gypsies and Travellers has been
moulded within late modernity to create a marginalised and racialised
‘other’, whom Ryder refers to as ‘insular minorities’ who have been
‘systematically disadvantaged’ (2011: 40).
 2 HISTORY AND IDENTITY 17

The subjugation of Gypsies and Travellers and their association with

vagrancy and thus poverty has a lengthy history (Taylor 2014) that
is based in racism towards them and tied-up with their propensity to
nomadism, as will be discussed further below. The allusion to Gypsies
and Travellers living poorly, and therefore being unclean in some sense,
or dirty, has been argued as one of the key tools used to stigmatise them
and thereby set them apart from ‘normal’ society (Sibley 1988). It has also
been important in providing an argument for the settlement of Gypsies
and Travellers, or their assimilation within sedentary society (McVeigh
1997), wherein they can live more ‘ordered’ lifestyles in housing. Media
accounts of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lives have commonly referred to
Gypsies and Travellers as ‘dirty’, leaving rubbish on sites and causing
damage to land. Parliamentary debates on Gypsy and Traveller sites have
also often devolved to similar denigration of Gypsy and Traveller commu-
nities (Turner 2002). Sibley (1988) utilises the work of Douglas (1966)
on ‘purity and danger’ in order to unpack societal responses to Gypsies
and Travellers. In doing so he notes the need of people to make sense of
the world through processes of classification, and that those who cannot
be classified are identified as pollutants, ‘as a threat to the integrity of
the collective’ (Sibley 1988: 410). The threatening nature of Gypsies and
Travellers in the UK is twofold, firstly by living nomadically or having
a predisposition towards nomadism they pose a threat by subverting the
order of places maintained by sedentarism. Secondly, and in association
with their nomadic habit of life, Gypsies and Travellers pose a threat to
the norms of society by the ephemeral nature of their cultures that are
closely guarded and illusory. While settled people romanticise the notion
of the free nomadic Gypsy in some contexts, such as in art and music, in
real terms they are fearful of this ‘traumatic intruder’ whose capacity to
embody the full joy of freedom is felt as a theft of what settled people see
as rightfully theirs in a neoliberal capitalist society (Žižek 1993, 2008).

Nomadism
The culturally nomadic nature of Gypsy and Traveller cultures in the UK
is borne of historic tradition and economic necessity. As noted in the
introduction to this book, Gypsy and Traveller communities are multiple
and as such vary in their ways of living and traditions. However, their
commonality is found in their desire to be nomadic, either in practice or
in perception (Shubin and Swanson 2010). In other words, Gypsies and
18 Z. JAMES

Travellers commonly want to travel as part of their lifestyle or they see

travelling as part of their identity, even if they are not mobile in practice.
Their enforced movement and lack of places to stop and stay, which will
be elaborated on in due course, complicate the travelling part of the iden-
tities of Gypsies and Travellers. Suffice to say, the notion of travelling or
mobility, is central to the identities of Gypsies and Travellers in the UK.
It is important to note here that nomadism is not necessarily relevant or
important to all Roma, Gypsy and Traveller peoples in Europe, and in
reality is often over-stated as a mechanism to imply Roma are stateless
peoples (Yildiz and De Genova 2018). Van Baar (2011) has referred to
this over-statement as constituting a process of nomadisation for Roma.
For those Gypsies and Travellers in the UK who are mobile, they
may be so for a variety of reasons and may travel for different periods
of time, either encircling a particular locality or moving far and wide.
Commonly Gypsies and Travellers are on the move in order to work
as a commercial necessity. Acton (2010) notes the important difference
between nomadism and migration, as nomadism refers to travelling for
a purpose, rather than as a single action, in pursuit of a commercial
aim. He argues that the conflation of nomadism with migration has
aided the stigmatisation of Roma in Europe who were racialised and
homogenised as an ethnic group in the eighteenth century and as such
were vilified, executed, enslaved, and subjugated (Alliance Against Anti-
Gypsyism 2016; Achim 2004). Subsequently nomadism has served as a
historic tool to racialise and subsequently pathologise Roma, rather than
recognise their historic nomadism as a positive economic enterprise in
response to their poor social living conditions in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. In the contemporary era, the free movement of
people between European Union states has notably again been distorted
when it comes to Roma who are stigmatised as migrants when they move
beyond their home countries. The stigma they experience in this sense
is imbued with racialised connotations of Roma as non-citizens that are
closely linked with notions of their nomadism (Howard and Vajda 2017).
The difference between various Roma, Gypsy and Traveller cultures and
communities is highlighted by this matter, and potentially challenges the
idea that European Union wide policy and practice can be applicable for
all those communities, as if their lifestyles, wants and needs are similar
(James 2020b, forthcoming; Kóczé and Rövid 2012).
The mobile nature of Gypsies and Travellers lives in the UK has been
culturally developmental in Acton’s (2010) construction. In the twentieth
 2 HISTORY AND IDENTITY 19

and twenty-first centuries, Gypsies and Travellers in the UK have lived

nomadically in order to work in seasonal occupations such as hop-picking,
flower picking or to run fairgrounds or work at music festivals. They
may travel all year round to work on road-building schemes, to trade,
carry out manual labour or sell crafts, but it is likely that such movement
would be localised around a particular area. Traditional work in Gypsy
and Traveller communities has focused on male self-employment, though
women have increasingly entered the labour market in the twenty-first
century and lack of employment opportunities have impacted on Gypsy
and Traveller communities as much as their sedentary neighbours, if not
more (Cemlyn et al. 2009). Other reasons for mobility among Gypsy and
Traveller communities has focused on family activities, so births, deaths
and marriages are particularly important occasions for traditional Gypsy
and Traveller communities, wherein extended families would travel long
distances in order to participate in celebrations and commemorations.
The nomadic lifestyles of Gypsies and Travellers in the UK, that are
informed by commercial and familial needs, are somewhat distorted by
the lack of space provided for them to stop and stay on as noted above.
Many Gypsies and Travellers have settled into housing, but for those who
have an aversion to bricks and mortar accommodation (Murdoch and
Johnson 2020) it has been estimated that their accommodation needs
in the UK equate to approximately one square mile of land in total
(EHRC 2009). And yet, accommodating Gypsies and Travellers is consid-
ered highly problematic by sedentary communities, local authorities and
parliamentarians. Negative depictions of the accommodation needs of
Gypsies and Travellers are presented in national and local media which
serves to amplify the perception of Gypsies and Travellers as problematic
and deviant (Sibley 1981; Tremlett et al. 2017) and augments protests
against their settlement. Such protests have been given greater legitimacy
since the Localism Act 2011 in England and Wales that actively encour-
aged inclusion of local views on planning matters (Ryder 2011). While
local authority planning officers have often presented inclusive approaches
to accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, this has not resulted in
accommodation provision as local councillors, reliant on the support of
sedentary communities in elections, have given tacit support to commu-
nity objections against plans for Gypsy and Traveller sites in order to win
votes (Erfani-Ghettani 2012). As Kabachnik (2010) has suggested, it is
Gypsies’ and Travellers’ desire for place that ignites settled communities’
fears rather than their mobility.
20 Z. JAMES

As previously noted, Gypsies and Travellers in the UK may choose to

live in housing, but their cultural affiliation with nomadism means that
they have often resisted assimilationist housing policy, preferring to live
according to their cultural norms. Generically, Gypsy and Traveller accom-
modation spaces are referred to as ‘sites’, but they may constitute spaces
containing a single home, or many homes together, they may be rural,
suburban or urban. Legally recognised sites can be used as residential
permanent living spaces; they can be used as transit sites where Gypsies
and Travellers reside temporarily; or, they can be used as temporary stop-
ping places that are safe shorter stay sites for Gypsies and Travellers to
stop-over as they are travelling. Legally recognised sites may be on land
owned by local authorities or privately owned land with planning permis-
sion. Unauthorised sites, on the other hand, describe settled sites on any
land that does not have planning permission, including land owned by
those occupying it themselves, and these sites may or may not be toler-
ated by local authorities. Very high proportions of planning applications
for Gypsy and Traveller sites fail (Morris and Clements 2002). Unautho-
rised encampments are places that have been occupied, generally on the
roadside, for relatively short periods of time. They are distinct due to
their temporary nature and the illegitimate use of space that they often
comprise (such as playing fields, car parks and lay-bys). Local authorities
have not provided sufficient spaces to Gypsies and Travellers to live on
resulting in what Cemlyn et al. (2009) referred to as an accommodation
crisis.
Historically, Gypsies and Travellers use of places to stop or to stay on
were dictated by their nomadic needs. Since the Enclosure Acts of the
eighteenth century Gypsies and Travellers utilised common land as tradi-
tional stopping places. However, in 1960 legislation closed the commons
and by doing so, prevented Gypsies and Travellers from easily identifying
places on which to rest or stay. In 1968 the Caravan Sites Act had required
local authorities to provide sites for Gypsies and Travellers to stop and
stay in their areas. However, local authorities failed to fulfil their require-
ments under the Caravan Sites Act because, similar to now, councillors
were unwilling to support site provision that would risk their likelihood of
electoral success amidst popular prejudice against Gypsies and Travellers
(Casciani 2004). Gypsies and Travellers therefore increasingly resorted to
stopping places that local authorities did not formally recognise. Tensions
between Gypsies and Travellers and the settled community consequently
 2 HISTORY AND IDENTITY 21

increased in the post-1968 period, as Gypsies and Travellers found them-

selves relying on places to stop and stay that encroached on settled
communities’ lifestyles (Murdoch and Johnson 2004). So, for example,
Gypsies and Travellers stopped and stayed in public spaces such as parks,
community fields and car parks that caused disruption and confusion to
the settled population. Settled communities felt subsequently unable to
use those spaces and they were considered a mess because local author-
ities refused to provide services such as rubbish collection. The crisis of
accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers has been exacerbated by the
extensive eviction actions taken by local authorities and police to move
Gypsies and Travellers out of their geographical areas and beyond their
responsibility (James 2006, 2007; James and Richardson 2006).
Traditional debate has placed nomadism in direct contrast to seden-
tarism (Cresswell 2006), proposing that the civilising project of modernity
is exemplified by the settlement of communities within geographically
bounded areas. However, the process of sedentarisation was never simple
or smooth, nor is it irreversible or mutually exclusive (McVeigh 1997).
Kenrick and Clark (1999) particularly note the post-war period as a time
in the twentieth century when Gypsies and Travellers lived relatively
harmoniously alongside settled people in the UK. Further, Holloway
(2005) and Sibley (1981) identify the variable nature of some media
reports on Gypsies and Travellers in the late nineteenth and early twen-
tieth centuries that appear to show elements of acceptance of some
Gypsy and Traveller communities. Indeed, in my own research it has
been apparent that Gypsies and Travellers can live amicably alongside
sedentarists (Southern and James 2006) and research by Shelter (Cullen
et al. 2008) has suggested that there are large numbers of Gypsies and
Travellers living in housing. Therefore, to create a great divide between
Gypsies and Travellers as nomads and non-Gypsy/Travellers as seden-
tarists is potentially false and may in fact serve to increase tensions
between communities. Thus, van Baar’s (2011) discussion of the nomadi-
sation of Roma in Europe is pertinent in the UK context. Nomadisation
has served to problematise Roma as distinct from other people who
require specific policies and practices to support them, which has subse-
quently reiterated Roma as a problem community. As van Baar’s point
evidences, the tendency to romanticise nomadic lifestyles as in opposi-
tion to sedentarism, with nomads perceived as the ultimate transgressor
of boundaries and order (Deleuze and Guatarri 1987; de Certeau 1984),
may in reality be an academic response to a far-more complex interaction
22 Z. JAMES

between communities that intersect on multiple levels. In a contem-

porary society that celebrates the mobility, fluidity and impermanence
of individuals and communities through complex technologies, it seems
incongruous to place the stigmatisation of Gypsies and Travellers as solely
a response to their nomadic propensity.
It may therefore be more appropriate to consider nomadism as one
aspect of the cultures of Gypsies and Travellers that challenges social
norms, and is used to signify their difference by the communities them-
selves and by those who wish to manage them as problematic communi-
ties, particularly within the political project that is the European Union
(Kóczé 2018). Further, Gypsies and Travellers utilise their nomadism to
place virtual and physical boundaries between them and, in their percep-
tion, a malignant society that is hateful of them. Gypsies and Travellers
move through spaces in a fluid manner, whereas sedentarists spatially
striate their environment physically, socially and cognitively (Halfacree
1996). A sedentarist binary logic to Gypsy and Traveller cultures denotes
that nomadic people are those that are constantly mobile without stop-
ping, and non-nomadic people are those who stop and will never be
mobile. This approach to nomadism has dictated UK governments’ poli-
cies and guidance (and those in the EU) on defining who constitutes a
Gypsy or Traveller, as well as who can stop and stay in particular places as
set out below. However, by taking account of the non-linear relationship
between Gypsies and Travellers and their nomadic identity, it is possible
to acknowledge their cultural nomadism, which refers to their predis-
position to think and act in a boundless fashion. Simplistic analyses of
nomadism equate it to mobility, whereas studies of Gypsies, Travellers and
Roma have long-recognised the nuanced and variable nature of cultural
nomadism that includes a range of approaches to living that are bound up
with notions of freedom and autonomy (Halfacree 1996; Levinson and
Sparkes 2004; Acton 2010; Shubin 2010).
The mobility of Gypsies and Travellers may discombobulate seden-
tarists generally and prove challenging to control agencies who aim to
manage them within particular geographically determined boundaries.
But it is the obfuscating nature of nomadism that is most confusing to
sedentarists. When Gypsies and Travellers attempt to identify places to
stop and stay on, the challenging nature of their mobility becomes more
threatening according to Kabachnik (2010) who describes Gypsies and
Travellers as place invaders in the public imagination. Kabachnik argues
that the UK media represents Gypsies and Travellers as in conflict with
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
„Goed, en dan gaan we meteen thuis het pakje aanhalen.”

„Maar wacht es,” zegt Ambro. „Hoe laat komen we terug?”

„Om half vier ongeveer.”

„Waar moeten we dan brood eten?”

„Da’s al lang in orde. Moeder heeft voor alles gezorgd. Voor ieder een stapel
kadetjes met ham en kaas.”

„Gommenikkie, da’s fijn!”

„En we mogen in een kattekroeg wat gaan drinken.”

„Dat wordt een reuzen-dag!” zegt Ambro verheugd.

Dan gaan de beide jongens op stap. Ambro koopt een pond goudreinetten.

„Wat een kanjers,” zegt Paul. „Me broekzakken puilen er van uit.”

„Nou, ik zal er niet lang last van hebben,” lacht Ambro.

Intusschen hebben ze Paul’s huis bereikt, waar [162]ze het pakje afhalen.
Boven aan de trap roept mevrouw: „Ambro, zul je goed op Paul passen?”

„Ja mevrouw,” is het antwoord. „U krijgt hem heelhuids terug.”

En nu begeven de jongens zich naar het bootje.

„We gaan eerste klas, hoor!” zegt Paul. „Dan zitten we fijn vooraan. En anders
krijg je al de rook in je facie.”

„Chique!” zegt Ambro. „Kijk het bankje bij de bel is vrij, laten we daar gaan
zitten, dan mogen we bellen als ie vertrekt.”

Ze zijn echter veel te vroeg en er is nog geen sprake van vertrekken.

„Ik ga een appel schillen,” zegt Ambro en hij haalt zijn mes te voorschijn; het
mes, dat alle jongens hem benijden, want het is groot, en gevuld met alle
soorten van mesjes en priempjes en het is overal voor te gebruiken.
De machinist van de boot, die vlak bij de jongens z’n pijpje staat te rooken,
kijkt er met welgevallen naar.

„Dat messie mag er wezen, jongeheer.”

Ambro, zeer gevleid, geeft hem het mes om ’t van dichtbij te laten bekijken.

„’n Effetief messie, best staal, zal nog heel wat gekost hebben.”

„Niks heeft ’t me gekost. Zoo maar voor noppes weggehaald.”

„’t Zal niet waar zijn,” zegt de machinist.

„Nee, niet weggekaapt! Eerlijk verdiend, hoor!”

„En je zeit weggehaald!” [163]

„Op de zomer-kermis, boven in een mast, die met groene zeep was
ingesmeerd. Ik had een heele sjouw voor ik er was en toen ik eenmaal boven
was, wist ik niet wat ik pakken zon, een ham of het mes.

„Maar ik koos toch ’t mes en nou ben ik er maar blij om, want ’t heeft me al
heel wat diensten bewezen.”

„Dat heb je ’m kranig gelapt,” zegt de machinist goedkeurend. „Die paaltjes

valle anders nog niks niet mee, ik ben tenminste es halleverwege blijve steke.”

„Mot je een stukkie,” vraagt Ambro, hem de helft van zijn appel voorhoudend.

„As ik je niet ontrijf. Maar, ’t is zoo’n groot brok, je houdt temet zelf niks over.”

„O, we hebben plenty, man.”

„Nou, dan op je santé.”

Vóór de machinist vertrekt, heeft ook Paul hem zijn aandeel geofferd.

Nu nadert de schipper, om met de bel het sein tot vertrek te geven.

„Mogen wij het doen?” vraagt Ambro.

„Ga je gang, jongeheer. Ik doe ’t elken dag.”

En Ambro belt alsof zijn leven er van af hangt. De bewoners van de Schie
hadden nog nooit zoo luid en lang het vertrek van het bootje hooren
aankondigen.

„Nou is ’t genoeg,” roept lachend de schipper. „Anders komen we nog zonder

bel in Delft aan.”

En Paul, die op zijn beurt gehoopt had de bel [164]te mogen luiden, werd
beloofd bij de aankomst aan de eerste aanlegplaats zijn schade te mogen
inhalen.

Juist zou de loopplank naar binnen gehaald worden, als van de kade hevig
met een parapluie wuivend, een oude juffrouw aan komt loopen, zoo hard, als
haar onderdanen het toelieten.

„Wacht even, schipper, die juffrouw moet nog mee,” roept Ambro.

„Ja, ik zie ’t” zegt de schipper en terwijl hij de juffrouw, die intusschen de
loopplank bereikt heeft, ridderlijk de hand toesteekt, zegt hij goedig: „Kalm an
maar, moeder, me hebbe de tijd.”

De juffrouw wordt hijgend en puffend naar binnen gehaald en de jongens

krijgen nu een mede-passagier.

De juffrouw is nog niet in staat een woord uit te brengen en zit amechtig naar
lucht happend op een bank, terwijl ze het bezweete welgedane gezicht met
een netjes opgevouwen, hagelwitten zakdoek afveegt.

„Hè, hè … hè, hè … is dat loope!… mense, mense,… hè, hè!”

„Blij dat u zit, juffrouw,” toetert Ambro haar in de ooren, zoo hard, alsof ’t
vanzelf sprak dat de juffrouw doof was, hetgeen ze wederom beantwoordde
met de noodige „hè hè’s” en „mense mense”.

„Dat scheelde maar een haartje,” schreeuwt Ambro, nòg harder dan den
vorigen keer, in de meening, dat zijn eerste gebrul niet verstaan was door de
juffrouw. [165]

Dit blijkt tè kras voor haar trommelvlies en ze keert zich verwoed naar Ambro
om, terwijl ze nijdig zegt:
„Ik bin niet doof! je hoef niet zoo te schreeuwe!”

Na dezen uitval kijkt Ambro haar even beteuterd aan en wijdt dan weer zijn
volle aandacht aan een worm, dien hij in een van zijn mooie goudreinetten
ontdekte.

„Ik bin anders altoos op tijd,” opent de juffrouw eensklaps het gesprek. „Me
klokkie gong sekers na.”

„Wat zegt u, juffrouw?” zegt Ambro, z’n oor vlak bij haar gezicht houdend.

Als ze hem verbaasd aankijkt, zegt de deugniet, terwijl hij veiligheidshalve een
eindje van haar af gaat zitten:

„Ik ben ook niet doof!”

En onmiddellijk laat hij er op volgen: „Moet u een stukkie?” en houdt haar een
stuk appel voor.

Dit verteedert de juffrouw en met een vriendelijk: „Dank Uwes wel, jongeheer,”
neemt ze het partje aan, dat ze luid smakkend verorbert.

„Is dat uw zoontje?” vraagt eensklaps Ambro, op Paul wijzend.

Paul, die zich al dien tijd stil hield en zich kostelijk vermaakte met het gesprek
tusschen het tweetal, proest het op eenmaal uit.

„Wou je ’n oud mensch nemen?” zegt de juffrouw lachend tegen Ambro. „Me
jongste soontje is al vijf en dertig. En die heit er krek zoo eentje als deuze.”

„Nou, dan kon ’t uw kleinzoontje zijn. Paul, daar zit je opoe. Lach es tegen d’r.”
[166]

„Je bent me d’r eentje,” zegt de juffrouw, maar ze heeft toch schik in hem.

„Moet u ook naar Delft?” vraagt Paul.

„Nee, ikke gaan na de Zwet, na me dochter, die heit daar ’n cefé.”

„Met een schommel?” vraagt Ambro vol belangstelling.

„Ja, achter ’t beffet,” lacht de juffrouw.

De schipper komt de kaartjes ophalen.

„Opoe betaalt voor ons,” zegt Ambro.

„’t Is toch … wat e rakker, hè? Sal me ’n lekker dier thuis sijn …! Soo twalef!!”

Dan licht ze zorgvuldig haar japonrok op en haalt uit een grooten witten zak,
een knipbeurs van enormen omvang en grut er met beverige vingers het geld
voor een „karetje” uit.

„Tot de Zwet,” zegt ze.

„De gewone reis, moeder,” zegt de schipper die haar reeds van lange jaren
kent. [167]

„Wij moeten naar Delft,” zegt Paul.

„Verkoopt u retourtjes?”

„Nee, jongeheer, alleenig enkelde reissie’s.”

„Dan twee stuks,” zegt Paul waardig.

„Ja, ja,” lacht Ambro. „Ik mag vandaag met oome uit.”

„Gane jullie soo same na Delleft?” informeert de juffrouw.

„Ja, juffrouw,” zegt Ambro. „Opkomen voor ons nummer, we zijn d’r allebei
ingeloot.”

„Hoor nou zoo’n broekeman,” zegt de schipper onder het weggaan.

„Dat zal nog wel een paar jaartjes anhouwe.”

„Sou je graag soldaat sijn?” vraagt de juffrouw aan Ambro.

„Nee,” zegt Ambro. „Ik hou van commandeeren en niet van gecommandeerd
te worden.”

„Toe maar, toe maar, wat een baassie!” lacht de juffrouw.

„Maar hij,” zegt Ambro, op Paul wijzend. „Hij is er gek op. Hij kan een heelen
dag met een houten geweertje en een kurk spelen.”

„Nee, hoor juffrouw,” valt Paul hem vlug in de rede. „Hij jokt maar wat, ik moet
er ook niets van hebben, me broer zegt ook dat ’t een nare zooi is en zonde
van je goeie tijd.”

„O, is uwes broer in dienst?” zegt de juffrouw, bij voorbaat ja knikkend met ’t
hoofd.

„Al zeven maanden zit ie d’r in,” zegt Paul. „En nou heeft ie straf; daarom gaan
we naar Delft om ’m wat lekkers te brengen.” [168]

„Heit ie straf?” zegt meewarig de juffrouw. „En mag ie nou niet naar huis?”

„Hij heeft veertien dagen, hoe heet ’t ook weer, o ja, kwartier-arrest.”

„Sa-je gebeure,” zegt de juffrouw, ofschoon ze volstrekt niet weet wat kwartier-
arrest wil zeggen.

„Sit ie nou in ’n hok?” informeert ze op fluisterenden toon.

„Ja,” lacht Ambro. „Aan een ketting.”

„O, daar hei je die pejas ook weer. Van jou geloof ik toch nooit niks meer.”

„Nee juffrouw,” licht Paul haar beleefd in. „Dat is het cachot wat u bedoelt, dat
is voor erge feiten, zegt me broer.”

„Wat heit ie dan wel gedaan, zonder nieuwsgierig te zijn,” zegt de juffrouw.

„Hij heeft aan den luitenant z’n sik getrokken,” zegt Ambro. „’t Was een
aangeplakte, want hij hield ’m in zijn hand.”

„Och malle,” lacht Paul. „Niks van aan, hoor juffrouw. Hij was niet geschoren
op een inspectie en toen heeft een sergeant hem er bij gelapt.”

„Wat een stuk sjagrijn! Ja, se kenne die jonges soo koejeneere,” zegt de
juffrouw vol medegevoel.

„Ja,” zegt Ambro. „Ik wist dat ’t iets met den baard te maken had.”

„Jongeheer, belle!” onderbreekt de schipper hun gekeuvel en Paul vliegt op de

bel af en haalt z’n schade van straks terdege in.

„Nou, ik bin d’r,” zegt de juffrouw, terwijl ze haar parapluie en mandje ter hand
neemt. [169]

„Goeie reis verdere, jongeheere.”

„Dag juffrouw,” zeggen de jongens beleefd.

Het bootje zet zijn reis voort.

Onderweg moeten zij onder twee bruggen doorvaren. De pijp wordt omlaag
gehaald en ook de ijzeren hekken van het bovendek moeten plat liggen opdat
de boot zonder stooten onder de brug door kan.

De schipper, die rustig zijn pijpje zat te rooken, verlaat nu ook het dek, want de
brug is in aantocht.

Maar Ambro heeft schik in het geval en stelt Paul voor boven op het dek te
klimmen.
„Je zal heusch je kop niet stooten! kom Paul, we gaan plat op onzen buik
liggen, net als de stoompijp.”

Meteen is Ambro al naar boven en Paul, hoewel een beetje angstig voor zijn
hoofd, volgt hem.

„Wat een rare knullen,” zegt de schipper lachend. „Als een verstandig mensch
voor zijn gemak naar beneje gaat, motte hullie juist naar bove.”

„’t Kan immers geen kwaad?” informeert Paul.

„Nee hoor,” stelt de schipper hem gerust. „Als je maar plat blijft liggen en niet
je neus in den wind steekt.”

Intusschen is de boot bij de brug gekomen en glijdt op eigen vaart er onder

door.

„Hè fijn,” juicht Ambro. „Hij schuift net langs mijn pet.”

„Tòch gevaarlijk,” zegt Paul. „Hij moet maar eens ’n beetje hooger liggen, de
brug zal heusch [170]niet uit den weg gaan en dan zouden we toch netjes
gekraakt worden.”

„Bê-je nou!” is de verontwaardigde uitroep van Ambro. „De pijp ligt immers nog
hooger dan wij.”

Maar ze zijn er al veilig onder door en Paul herademt. Hij vond het een
benauwde bedoening.

„Straks nog een brug,” zegt Ambro. „Jammer, dat er geen twintig onderweg
zijn. Ik vind het wàt emmes, ’t is weer eens wat anders.”
[Inhoud]
 AMBRO REDT EEN SECTIE SOLDATEN.

Delft nadert.—Het weêr is heerlijk, het lijkt wel een zomersche dag. De
jongens zitten weer in de laagte bij den voorsteven van het bootje.

„Kijk es, Paul,” roept Ambro triomfantelijk. „Ben ik niet handig?… ik pak
me daar zoo maar een visch uit het water,” en hij houdt Paul een klein
witvischje onder den neus.

„Kijk-t-ie spartelen,” zegt Paul in bewondering voor Ambro’s vlugheid.

„Maar niet heusch,” zegt deze. „Hij is zoo dood als een pier. Kijk, er
dobberen er nog veel meer. Tsjonge,… kijk es wat een zooi! En allemaal
dood.”

De schipper, die hun gesprek gevolgd had, geeft hun uitleg.

„Da’s van de fabrieke … die vergiftige hier het water met d’rlui
uitwaseminge en dan mot, al wat leeft, sterreve.”

„Kan je ze nog eten?” vraagt Ambro vol belangstelling. [171]

„Nee jonge, da’s niet goed voor je maag, maar de poes, die zou d’r an
smulle.”

Voor de laatste maal luidt Ambro nu de bel—de boot is aan.

Ze nemen afscheid van den schipper en roepen hem een tot-straks toe,
want over vier uur gaan ze weer terug naar Rotterdam.

„Heb je je pakkie, Paul?” vraagt Ambro met een dood-onschuldig gezicht

als ze al een heel eind op weg naar de kazerne zijn.

„Allemachies!” Paul verbleekt. „Nee, gauw terug!” En hij wil terughollen

naar de boot.
„Ik heb het,” roept Ambro en houdt het bewuste voorwerp omhoog.

„Hè, is dàt schrikken,” hijgt Paul.

„Hij is alwéér reusachtig!” lacht Ambro. „Zeg, weet jij den weg?” vraagt hij
dan.

„Ik wel,” zegt Paul. „We moeten naar de paardenmarkt.”

„Mag je d’r in, ik bedoel in de kazerne?”

„Dat zal niet gaan, ze laten geen burgers toe.”

„Laat naar je kijken, ben jij een burger!” schatert Ambro.

„Ja zeker zijn wij burgers, we dragen toch geen uniform.”

„Goed, burger Paul, alweer gelijk. Ik had anders wàt graag eens een
kijkie genomen in zoo’n soldatenhuis. Ik vraag het ijskoud aan den
generaal.”

„Jôh! de generaal! Die is er niet altijd, een hoogst enkele keer,” zegt Dirk,
„en dan moeten ze poetsen tot ze groen zien en een pluimpje [172]krijgen
ze nooit, alleen straf als er wat aan mankeert.”

„Nou, ik wil en zal de kazerne in,” zegt Ambro. „Wedde, dat we d’r in
komme?”

„Hier heen,” roept Paul. „Dit straatje in, dan zijn we er.”

„Ja, ik zie al een vlakte, dat is zeker de paardenmarkt.”

Om den hoek gekomen zien ze een menigte soldaten in werkcostuum.

„Wat zien ze d’r raar uit,” roept Ambro. „Dat is zeker hun daagsche
pakkie, ’t lijken wel clowns met die malle mutsie’s.”

„Dat zijn kwartiermutsen,” verklaart Paul, die nu alle geleerdheid

betreffende den dienst, opgedaan bij Dirk, Ambro opdischt.
„Je moet ’t maar weten! Hoort die kerel een muil opzetten! Die denkt
zeker, dat ze allemaal doof zijn! Begrijp jij, wat ie van ze wil?”

„Ja zeker,” zegt Paul. „Aan den schouder, geweer!” schreeuwt ie. Hoor,
nou roept ie weer „zet af.”

„En ze doen niks,” lacht Ambro.

„Wacht maar even,” zegt Paul.

Meteen klinkt weer een harde schreeuw, dat „geweer” moet verbeelden,
waarop alle geweren netjes, tegelijk weer op den grond worden geplaatst.

„Wat een poppenkast,” roept Ambro. „Dan vind ik gedresseerde honden

nog aardiger.”

„Kom mee,” dringt Paul aan. „Laten we nou niet aldoor hier blijven kijken.”
[173]

„Nou, misschien is Dirk er wel bij,” zegt Ambro, die pret heeft in al dat
gedoe. Hij had nog nooit zooiets gezien. Eenmaal in Den Haag, maar dat
was parade, toen waren ze allemaal netjes aangekleed en moesten
wachten op den generaal, die op een paard kwam aanhollen en al de
mannetjes monsterde.

„Kom je nou, of niet,” zegt Paul ongeduldig. „Anders zal ik wel alleen
gaan.”

„Hier ben ik al, burger, houd je kalm,” plaagt Ambro.

Ze stappen op de poort van de kazerne af en passeeren een paar

soldaten, die lui uitgestrekt in het zonnetje liggen te braden.

„Tabak, jongens?” vraagt er een. „Geef maar hier. Of is ’t misschien een

hammetje? Dat blieven we ook wel.”

„Fopspeentjes,” roept Ambro terug. „Vóór jullie naar bed gaan krijg je ze.”
Vóór de poort zit een sergeant op een kapotten stoel een krantje te lezen.

Hij kijkt bij het naderen van het tweetal van zijn lectuur op.

„Zoo, jong vee, wat motte jullie gedaan weze?”

Paul is zoowaar geschrokken van den harden toon waarop hij wordt
toegesproken, maar al gauw merkt hij, dat het niet zoo kwaad gemeend
is.

Ambro doet nu maar het woord.

„Meneer, we zouden graag dit pakje aan Dirk brengen. Dat is zijn broer,
ziet u. Mag dat?”

„Dirk kenne we hier niet,” luidt het antwoord. [174]

„D’r zijn hier misschien wel honderd Dirken. Maar waar leit ie? Welke
compie, welke sectie, welke kamer?”

„Dirk Vermeeren, 3de compagnie, 2de sectie, kamer 17,” antwoordt Paul
vlug.

Hij heeft nu weer allen moed teruggekregen nu hij merkte dat de bullebak
geen „kwaje” was.

„Dan gaan jullie ’t zellef maar brenge, hij zal d’r wel zijn, alles is
vanmorrege thuis. Hier de gang in, één trap op en dan de eerste deur
rechts. Ingerukt, marsch!”

Weg zijn de jongens.

„Zie je nou wel,” zegt Ambro zegevierend. „Ik wist het wel, dat we naar
binnen mochten, die kerel was immers veel te lui om dat pakkie zelf te
brengen. Hier Paul, kamer 17.”

„Moet je kloppen?” vraagt Paul een beetje bevreesd in dat nare, donkere,
groote gebouw.
„Bê-je wel wijs?” zegt Ambro. „Van nette manieren weten ze hier niks,” en
meteen doet hij de deur open.

„In orde, staat!” klinkt het op luiden toon en de beide jongens zien
plotseling overal kerels opduiken, die op stroozakken lagen te rooken, te
lezen en te luibakken.

Ieder staat nu als een standbeeld voor zijn bed.

De jongens begrijpen er niets van, tot de kerels in de gaten krijgen, dat ze

voor den mal zijn gehouden en loom hun bed weer opzoeken.

„Hallo,” roept Dirk, die hun die poets gebakken heeft. „Daar zijn de twee
hooge oome’s, heeren, [175]mag ik u voorstellen, mijn geachte broeder,
kolonel Paul en Overste Ambro, het grootste beest van Rotterdam en
omstreken.”

Paul, blij, dat hij eindelijk een bekend gezicht ziet en een bekende stem
hoort, komt met Ambro op Dirk af en reikt hem het pakje over.

„Dat moet ik je van moeder brengen en verder veel groeten van

allemaal.”

„Nou, maar jullie zijn beste kereltjes, hoor!” zegt Dirk die het pakje begint
te openen. „Hoe vinden jullie ’t hier? Gezellig, hè? Ambro, is dat geen
lekker bedje, je komt maar es logeeren, plaats en eten genoeg.”

De jongens kijken hun oogen uit; zoo’n rare boel hebben ze nog nooit
gezien.

IJzeren kribben met een stroozak en de wollen dekens op een hoopje

aan het eind en daar weer boven een kastje met een rommel waar je niet
meer uit wijs kan worden.

„Ha!” roept Dirk blij. „Sigaartjes en Kwatta’s! da’s toch maar alles. Ambro,
moet je een stukje?”
Ambro kijkt met glundere blikken naar het verleidelijke stukje chocolade,
maar hij weigert het en vindt, dat je een gevangene zijn lekkernij niet
moet ontnemen.

Dirk heeft, zooals we reeds zeiden, veertien dagen kwartier-arrest, omdat

hij bij een inspectie niet schoon geschoren was.

„Heb je nou heusch straf omdat je niet geschoren was,” vraagt Ambro
ongeloovig. „En als je nu je baard laat staan; hij kan toch niet in één nacht
lang zijn?” [176]

„Daar houden ze hier geen rekening mee,” antwoordt Dirk. „Of een glad
gezicht òf een flinke baard.”

Ambro voelt eens over zijn wang en kan slechts constateeren, dat er nog
geen spoor van haar te bespeuren is. „Bij mij is gelukkig alles in orde,”
zegt hij. „Laat de hooge-oome maar komen, hij mag me over mijn koonen
aaien.”

„Wat een lefschoppertje,” roept hem een landweerman toe, die evenals
alle anderen, lui op zijn krib ligt uitgestrekt.

„Had ik maar een beetje rook in mijn mond!” Deze verzuchting was voor
Dirk bedoeld en deze gooit hem een van zijn pas ontvangen sigaren toe.

„Hier, ouwe dief, jij ook wat,” lacht Dirk, en dan tot de jongens: „Dat is nou
onze Manus, de grootste lijntrekker van de heele compie.”

„Lijntrekken?” vraagt Paul.

En Dirk legt uit: „Lijntrekken is net doen of je druk aan ’t werk bent en een
heeleboel te doen hebt, maar in werkelijkheid voer je niks-niemendal uit
en als ze mannetjes zoeken om het een of andere karweitje op te
knappen … kamers zwabberen, stroozakken vullen of zoo iets lekkers,
dan ben je in geen hoeken of gaten te vinden.”
De jongens snappen het wel, maar zien niet in, dat kamers-zwabberen en
stroozakken vullen zulke nare bezigheden zijn.

„Ja,” zegt Manus. „Eventjes is aardig, vooral voor zulke jonge snuiters als
jullie, maar een heelen middag zou zoo’n grappie je gauw de keel uit
hangen.” [177]

„Zijn jullie nou allemaal lijntrekkers?” vraagt Ambro. „En kan niemand je
vinden?” en meteen wijst hij naar buiten, waar, op de binnenplaats een
sectie recruten een looppasje in ’t rond maakt.

„Kijk die es hollen in de warmte,… hun tongen hangen op hun vessie,…

dan is die daar, met die lange sabel verstandiger, die blijft tenminste
rustig op zijn plaats en laat de anderen rennen.”

„Oh, dat is de ooievaar,” lacht Dirk. „Ik hoor het aan zijn commando, hij
kraait net als een oude juffrouw, zie je wel, jongens, wat een lange nek
die kerel heeft, dat is „de ooievaar”.”

„Mogen jullie hier nou zoo niks doen en luieren?” vraagt Paul, die bang is,
dat er wel eens ’n hooge oome kon binnen komen.

Maar Dirk stelt hem gerust.

„Ja, hoor Paul, dat màg, we hebben nachtdienst gehad in de duinen bij
Den Haag en daarom hebben we nu rust, ja, ze zijn wàt bezorgd voor
ons, als het regent mogen we ook thuis blijven, kijk maar …” en hij wijst
op een broek, die stijf is van natte modder.

„Dat is mijn feestbroek, die deelt met me in lief en leed.”

„Ik heb de jicht in m’n rug van dat nachtelijke tochie,” klaagt Manus. „En
de volgende keer vertik ik ’t, dan piep ik ’m en kruip onder de wol … ze
lijken wel gek,… als een fesoenlijk mensch maft, gaan hullie met beeste-
weer door de duine renne.”
„Ik het toch moar twie kenijntjes te groaze hàad,” [178]klinkt van de
overzijde de stem van een boerenzoon.

„Zundàag zaamme smulle,” lacht hij en de jongens zien een glimmend

gezicht met glunderende oogen die bij het grinniken geheel verdwijnen,
terwijl een breeden spleet te zien komt, zijn mond met gele tanden.

„Hei ’j nog tebàak?” roept hij tot Dirk, maar deze, wel goed, doch niet gek,
antwoordt hem: „Een ander keertje, broer, anders hou ik zelf niks en ik
moet nog negen dagen brommen.”

De jongens zijn bij elkaar op de leege krib naast Dirk gaan liggen en
voelen zich langzamerhand thuis in de vreemde omgeving.

„Ik vind ’t toch wel aardig hier,” zegt Ambro. „Alleen een beetje saai op
den duur.”

„Saai!” roept Manus. „Hoe kan je ’t zeggen, we vervelen ons nooit, we

worden altijd bezig gehouden, een eerste klas hotel is er niks bij.”

Plotseling worden zware stappen gehoord en vliegt de deur open.

„In orde, staat!” wordt er geroepen en ditmaal is het geen grap.

„Toe, maak geen spas, hou op met die flauwe kul, leelijke kevers!”
schreeuwt Manus, die den kapitein niet in de gaten krijgt

Maar nu hij de anderen doodstil voor de bedden ziet staan kijkt hij op en
ontdekt dat inderdaad ditmaal de kapitein op de kamer is.

„Kop dicht,” roept de sergeant die hem begeleidt en Manus glijdt van zijn
krib en neemt „de houding” aan. [179]

De jongens hebben van schrik hetzelfde gedaan, en begrijpen weer niets

van die rij standbeelden die onbewegelijk blijven staan.

De grinnekende kop van den boerenzoon is veranderd in een dom

gezicht met vragend verwonderde oogen.
„Wat moet dat hier? Niks te doen? Dan maar aantreden in veldtenue; een
looppasje maken. Dat niks doen werkt verkeerd op jullie; binnen vijf
minuten op de binnenplaats, veldtenue met rol.”

„Kap’tein,” vraagt Manus.

„Kop dicht,” is ’t antwoord en Manus kijkt bedremmeld naar den grond,

terwijl hij zijn pruim van zijn rechter- naar z’n linkerwang laat gaan.

„Kap’tein,” roept een heldere jongensstem.

De kapitein kijkt op en ontdekt aan ’t eind van de kamer de twee jongens,

die half verscholen waren achter den dikken buik van een anderen
landweerman.

„Wat moet dat,” vraagt de kapitein verbaasd. „Wat doen jullie hier? er
mogen geen burgers in de kazerne.”

„Zie je wel,” fluistert Paul in doodsangst. „We zijn burgers, ik heb je wel
gewaarschuwd.”

Bij deze woorden moet de kapitein even glimlachen.

„Hoe komen jullie hier?” vraagt hij, terwijl hij naar de jongens toe gaat

Paul weet geen antwoord te vinden, hij is bang geworden door die
doodelijke stilte in een kamer waar een dertigtal mannen als beelden
staan te staren. [180]

„Net het panopticum,” denkt hij.

„Hij moest een pakje voor z’n broer brengen en we mochten van dien
mijnheer beneden aan de deur het zelf gaan brengen,” antwoordt Ambro
op helderen toon.

„Zoo—en waarom riep jij daar straks „kaptein”, had je me wat te zeggen?”
„Ja kaptein,” luidt het antwoord van Ambro. „Nu Manus,” en hij wijst op
den landweerman naast Dirk, „nu Manus z’n kop moest houden, wou ik u
maar even vertellen, dat ze allemaal vannacht gerend hebben in de
duinen met dat beestenweêr en dat ze daarom, zooals u zei, niks doen
en luieren.”

Hij zucht, nu eindelijk er uit is wat hij op ’t hart heeft.

„Zoo, nou maar dat is wat anders,” zegt de kapitein op zachten toon. „Dus
jullie hebt nachtdienst gehad,… nou, blijf dan maar hier … je kunt je gang
gaan.” [181]

Meteen ligt alles weer op de geliefkoosde krib, als werden ze door een
electrischen schok getroffen, en de kapitein, die de jongens toeknikte,
verlaat even dreunend de kamer als hij binnengekomen was.

„Mooi gedaan,” klinkt ’t hartelijk van Dirk.

„Je hebt ’t ’m kranig gezeid,” zegt Manus.

„Heere, Heere, kan dàat jong proate,” is de lof van den boerenzoon en
Ambro, die hen allemaal redde van den gevreesden looppas in de zon,
stond als held van het oogenblik midden in de kamer, blij, dat alles goed
afgeloopen was, want Paul had gelijk gehad, ze waren tòch burgers.

„Ja,” zegt Manus. „Had ik de burgerpet op gehad, dàn had-ie naar mijn
ook wel geluisterd, maar as-t-ie je in je werkpakkie ziet, wordt-ie
dienstklopper en dan is ’t „kophouwen en doen”!”

Paul heeft er genoeg van, en vindt, dat ze nu maar eens moeten

opstappen. Ze nemen hartelijk afscheid van Dirk en al de anderen en
begroet met arm-gezwaai van alle kribben verlaten ze de kamer.

„’t Was tòch fijn,” zegt Ambro, als ze weer op straat staan.

„Ik vind ’t een nare boel, ik zou niet graag zoo behandeld worden,” is
Paul’s antwoord.

„Hoorde je niet hoe ze allemaal het land er aan hebben? Dirk kan
gelukkig weer op zijn kantoor terug komen na den dienst, maar er zijn er
veel die hun plaats bezet vinden.”

„Ja,” zegt Ambro. „Van dien kant bekeken heb je gelijk, maar zoo’n
nachtelijke tocht door de duinen zou ik toch wàt graag meemaken.” [182]

„Nou, dat kan best eens gebeuren. Karel z’n vader gaat van den zomer
kampeeren, je zult zien, dat we dan mee mogen.”

„’t Zou tijd worden,” zucht Ambro. „Onze nachtelijke tocht is toen mooi in
de war geloopen. Maar, over wat anders gesproken, me maag jeukt.”

„Ik weet een kattekroeg,” zegt Paul. „Ga maar mee.”

De jongens stevenen nu direct op het doel af, om als ze hun twaalf-uurtje

hebben gebruikt, de terugreis te aanvaarden.

Het was een fijn dagje geweest en met voldoening kon Ambro terugzien
op zijn heldendaad in de kazerne, waar hij het waagde een „hooge oome”
te trotseeren en de soldaten te redden van den gehaten „looppas in de
zon”.