UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM
Rewriting National
Identity
Transformation in two traditional South African
national museums
Circe de Bruin 28-10-2016
2
C
ONTENTContent 2
Introduction 3
Introducing the museums 7
Research Questions 7
Social and academic relevance 8
Methodology 8
Part I Theoretical framework 10
Chapter 1 Transformation process from government to curator 10
1.1. The role of the government 10
1.2. The role of the public 17
1.3. Community involvement 22
1.4. The museum concept 23
1.5. Restrictions of the curator´s perspective 25
1.6. Conclusion theoretical framework 26
part II Case Studies 27
Chapter 2 Ditsong National Cultural History Museum 30
2.1. Implementation of government’s transformation policies 30
2.2. The role of the public 35
2.3. Community involvement 36
2.4. The museum’s concept 37
2.5. The curator 39
2.6. Current state of transformation 42
2.7. Concluding remarks 44
Chapter 3 Iziko Slave Lodge 45
3.1. Implementation of government’s transformation policies 45
3.2. The role of the public 53
3.3. Community involvement 55
3.4. The museum’s concept 56
3.5. The curator 56
3.6. Current state of transformation 60
3.7. Concluding remarks 62
Conclusion and discussion 64
References 68
Books, Articles, Websites 68
3
I
NTRODUCTIONOn September 24th, 1997, Heritage Day in the Republic of South Africa, Nelson Mandela called on museums to transform and interact with the change around them to ‘strengthen’ the new South Africa:
“When our museums and monuments preserve the whole of our diverse heritage, when they are inviting the public and interact with the changes all around them, then they will strengthen our attachment to human rights, mutual respect and democracy, and help prevent these ever again to be violated.”1
At that time, South Africa was going through “one of the most startling periods of political and social transformation in recent history”.2 In 1994 the first democratic elections took place, after years of oppression of the non-white majority of the population by the official policy of racial segregation, which is globally known as apartheid. Transforming to a democratic society where, by law, all people have the same rights, has been an enormous challenge for South African citizens. In order to do so, the South African identity had to be reinterpreted and revised on both a regulatory and social level. Consequently, South Africa is a country where questions and lively debates on representing national identity are developing quickly in all corners of society.
As a result, South African museums were heavily affected by transformation politics. However, the first discussions, debates and papers about democratizing heritage and its curatorship in order to display more diverse narratives to be displayed, were held even before apartheid was overthrown and the new government had actually started with a soft revolution towards transformation politics. During apartheid, the relation between the government and the heritage sector is described by Steven Dubin as mainly self-censored:
“Actual incidents […] during apartheid years were rarities, [but the] prospect caused their personnel to exercise a great deal of caution in the way they conducted their business. The fear that the sword of Damocles generates is not because it has fallen, but that by dangling overhead, it could come down any moment.”3
1Mandela, “Address By Nelson Mandela on Heritage Day, Robben Island.” (September 24th 1997),
Accessed October 24, 2016.
http://www.mandela.gov.za/mandela_speeches/1997/970924_heritage.htm
2 Annie E. Coombes, History after Apartheid;Visual Culture and Public Memory in a Democratic South Africa.
(Durham /London: Duke University Press, 2003), 1.
3 Steven C. Dubin. Mounting Queen Victoria; Curating Change in South Africa. (New York: Jacana Media,
2009, first published as Transforming Museums; Mounting Queen Victoria in Democratic South Africa. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 250.
4
Only an international boycott in the ’80 and early ‘90 initiated change. According to Dubin this was a starting point for the museum sector to look further.4 In 1988 museums sought cooperation in the construction of the national narrative, without the direct involvement of the government for the first time. This occurred at the Conference on the Conservation of Culture in Cape Town and its proceedings in Pretoria called Changing Contexts and Challenges.5 Here the question was raised if museums should be neutral or if culture should be accepted as always being political.6 As part of this shift towards more social awareness in the heritage sector, writers such as Mbongiseni Buthelezi started arguing for the ‘black perspective’ to be represented in museums. As a reaction, some the one-dimensional ‘indigenous heritage’ cabinets were re-examined, although immediate radical change did not occur. In the following year, however, questions arose about the lack of interest of (black) people in their own history which was represented in those few cabinets.7 As a response, historian Denver Webb wrote an article that was published in 1988, where he argued for the importance of the involvement of (local) communities in the creation of their own heritage.8 Subsequently, museum officials began discussing about how to deal with white and non-colonialist heritage in a different way, which developed into a focus on community-involvement in the sector.9 Especially the article “Culture and Conservation: whose interest,” written by Keyan Tomaselli and Mewa Rambogin was very influential. In the article they countered Buthelezi’s argument for the ‘black perspective’ as being just another way of forming segregated groups. They argued that “museums should embody history from different groups from their perspective, not only dominant groups”, thereby showing the museum visitor the bias of the institutionally preferred reading of history.10 Hence, around 1990, liberal voices began advocating community involvement. This is described by Dubin as part of the more general shift of the heritage sector to “focus [on] target people, social purpose and community, instead of the aesthetics, the object and curatorial authority that these museums previously propagated.11 However, not everybody in the sector had
4 Dubin, Mounting Queen Victoria, 250.
5 Ingrid Coetzee and Gerard-Mark Van der Waal eds., The Conservation of Culture: Changing Context and
Challenges; Proceedings of the South African Conference on the Conservation of Culture, Cape Town, 6-10 June 1988. (South African Conference of the Conservation of Culture, 1988).
6 Coetzee and Van der Waal. Conference on the Conservation of Culture, 1988; Coombes, History after
Apartheid, 151. The SAMA, NMC, Social Science Research Counsel and South African Society for Cultural
History set together to debate this issue.
7 Coombes, History after Apartheid, 154. Actual paper of Buthelezi could not be traced; For a detailed
example see the diorama debate of the South African Museum explained by Shannon Jackson and Steven Robins, “Miscast: The place of the museum in negotiating the Bushman in past and present,” South-North
Cultural and Media Studies 13.1 (1999): 69-101.
8 Denver A. Webb, “National Monuments in Ciskei – First World Luxuries in a Third World Context?” In
Coetzee and van der Waal, eds., The Conservation of Culture (1988): 232-236.
9 Keyan Tomaselli and Mewa Rambogin“Culture and Conservation: whose interest,” In Coetzee and van
der Waal, eds., The Conservation of Culture, (1988); 106-107; Coombes, History After Apaprtheid, 151.
10 Coombes, History after Apartheid, 151. 11 Dubin, Mounting Queen Victoria, 244.
5
that same viewpoint. As Kevin Cole, director of East London Museum, explains about most curators during apartheid: “Exploring the ‘black experience’ did not come to the curators mind, it resided in its landscape that was either physically separate, or hidden from plain sight.”12
Then, in 1994, the ANC won the first democratic elections of South Africa and the country became the terrain of the celebrated “negotiated solution”or “soft revolution” as orchestrated by Nelson Mandela.13 A series of papers on transformation targets for the heritage sector were published, known as the White Papers on Arts, Culture and Heritage.14 The first White Paper was published by the Department of Arts and Culture on June the 4th, 1996. This “broad statement of government policy” underlines the issue of human rights in general, democratizing the heritage sector in particular to a place “where everyone has the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community and to enjoy the arts.” Further on, it explained that funding by the first democratic government will be given to those who aim for these values.15 In addition, Coombes describes how the new ANC government tried to change the old museum establishment that mainly wanted to preserve the [white] status quo in the first years of transformation. However, their expertise was often indispensable, and many curators kept their jobs as a result. Consequently, Coombes describes that “a new struggle over South Africa’s past was just beginning,” a political struggle about heritage and national identity and who has the right to tell that story to whom.16
These words seem applicable even today as recent unrest caused by student protests. These protests started as the #RhodesMustFall movement in March 2015.17 In the beginning, the movement focussed on the removal of the specific statue of John Cecil Rhodes in front of the University of Cape Town (UCT), while today the protests have developed into a movement that fights the bad housing situation for especially black students, institutional racism in general and student fees. Protests became more violent on 16th of February 2016 when UCT artworks were burnt and two vehicles were set on fire.18 Petrol bombs were also used on several occasions during September 2016
12 Dubin, Mounting Queen Victoria, 46. 13 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 24.
14 South African Government, “White Papers,” Accessed October 24, 2016.
http://www.gov.za/documents/white-papers
15 Department of Arts and Culture, “White Paper on Arts, Culture and Heritage,” Accessed October 24,
2016. http://www.gov.za/documents/arts-and-culture-white-paper
16 Coombes, History after Apartheid, 17.
17“#RhodesMustFall Official Twitter Account of UTC,” Registered March 2015. Accessed October 24, 2016.
https://twitter.com/RhodesMustFall.
18 Zodini Dano, “Angry UCT students set artworks alight,” IOL, February 17, 2016. Accessed October 16,
6
protests.19 This indicates that the remarkable dealing of South Africa with its old historic markers has become problematic at certain points. Many academics like Marshall and Coombes argue for the “salutary effect” of claiming ownership of these old markers, however at least a small group of young South Africans feel the old markers should not be left standing.20 These protests illustrate that South Africa is not yet finished with its dealing with the past and that after twenty years of democracy, South Africa’s identity is heavily debated.21
National identity is a complex matter that has been academically discussed from many perspectives. This thesis will be based on national identity as proposed by sociologist Benedict Anderson in his prominent work Imagined Communities; Reflections on Origin and Spread of Nationalism.22 Two particularly relevant components of his theory will be shortly introduced in the following paragraph. Firstly, national identity is understood by Anderson as an exclusively social construct:
“Nations are not necessarily based on deeply rooted bonds, historically shared values and cultural practices (e.g. language, religion, ethnicity), but artificially constructed, even invented, political entities created within specific socio-political contexts, which are subsequently naturalized and mythologized.”23
Thus, Anderson argues that an artificially constructed narrative creates a national identity, which he calls the common ground for the “group of people that will never meet.” Due to the mythologizing aspect, this narrative is often referred to as the “national myth,” which is a key concept in this thesis.24 Secondly, according to Anderson, the construction of this national myth is not unambiguous and can not only be understood from a political point of view. Instead, he argues, it “has to be understood[…], not with self-consciously held political ideologies, but with the large cultural systems that preceded it, out of which […] it came into being.”25 This thesis will focus on the construction of a national narrative by these large cultural systems. Studying national museums will enable a broader
19 “Protesting UCT students throw petrol bombs,” SABC, October 5, 2016. Accessed October 16, 2016.
http://www.sabc.co.za/SABC/newsblog/index.html/a/415130004e7b77f9b611fe3de8e44b3d/Protestin g-UCT-students-throw-petrol-bombs-20160510.
20 Coombes, History after Apartheid, 295.
21 It should be kept in mind that this historiography, as any historiography, is a chronological ordering of
events that form a coherent narrative. This is problematic in the sense that it excludes other events and inherits the dominating perspective of the writer. In addition, this method tends to suggest a causal link between these mentioned events and the current situation, without taking unnamed events into account. This description of past events should thus be read very critically.
22 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities; Reflections on Origin and Spread of Nationalism.
(London/New York: Verso, 1983)
23 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 100.
24 Marschall Landscape of Memory, 200; Jackie Grobler, ““The Impact of Politics on Heritage and Cultural
Tourism in South Africa.” South African Society of Cultural History 22.1 (2008): 164.
7
view on the construction of national narrative by cultural systems, as the national museum is a place where not only political but also academic, communal as well as practical perspectives intertwine. Subsequently, the following questions will be raised: How do the museums relate to proposed transformation policies concerning diversity in staff, community involvement and a ‘new’ South African narrative? How do they deal with their colonial and apartheid collections? What transformations did work and which issues remain unresolved? Hence, the main question that will be examined from an insider’s perspective is: “How did different factors of Benedict Andersons large cultural system influence the transformation process of the traditional South African national museums from the abolition of apartheid onwards?”
I
NTRODUCING THE MUSEUMSThe two traditional national museums that will be used as case study for this thesis are Ditsong National Cultural History Museum in Pretoria and Iziko Slave Lodge in Cape Town. These museums have been selected because they have the purpose of telling a national story – the history and culture of South Africa. Moreover, both museums functioned as predominantly white and “Afrikaner” oriented museum during apartheid, which makes their collections colonial and Western today. This is why they are described as traditional. Both have expressed the ambition to transform, and have gone through significant changes since 1994.26 These and other developments of both museums towards the transformation of a new national narrative will be closely examined in the second part of this thesis.
R
ESEARCHQ
UESTIONS“How did different factors of Benedict Anderson’s large cultural system influence the transformation process of the traditional South African national museums from the abolition of apartheid onwards?”
Sub questions:
Part I Defining transformation and its factors of influence
1) What are the transformation values that the government’s policies assume?
2) What factors played a role in the transformation processes of the museum and how can their role be described?
3) What transformation narratives can be identified? Part II The Case Studies
4) How do Ditsong National Cultural History Museum and the Iziko Slave Lodge relate to transformation policies?
8
5) What transformations have proved successful and which issues stayed unresolved or remained problematic?
6) What are the current narratives that the museum presents? 7) How does the staff reflect on the process of transformation?
S
OCIAL AND ACADEMIC RELEVANCEPublic debate on national identity as mentioned above is alive in post-apartheid South Africa.27 By looking at museums as an important player in the field of national identity, this thesis aims to contribute to the more general question in this heritage debate from a public history perspective: How does the museum function as place of identification for the South African people?
In addition, the “national myth” can be understood as transcends the boundaries of the academic world. The museum is a place where politics, the public, academic theory and practice meet. That is why the museum is a perfect place to look at the interconnected factors of Anderson’s “cultural system at large,” that develop a ‘new’ national identity.28
Public history questions the value of exclusive academic research on concepts that are much related to society, such as history and identity. This thesis will combine this academic perspective with an insider’s perspective on the transformation process by staff members, based on the developments of two actual museums. As Grele argues; this second perspective would add to our general knowledge on what we are investigating: humanities.29
M
ETHODOLOGYTo answer the main question, several research methods are used. Literary and historical analysis, sub structured interviewing and observation (as is common in anthropological research), will be combined to get a more complete understanding of the subject.
To answer the questions of the first part of this thesis an analysis of the existing literature on this topic will be made. For this analysis this thesis will consult amongst others Annie E. Coombes, Steven Dubin and Sabine Marschall as their research has been academically very influential when it comes to the transformation of the heritage sector in post-apartheid South Africa. Thus, this first part will identify past and current debates surrounding this transformation on which the following chapters will elaborate and reflect. First the prominent role of the government, the public and the communities will be discussed. After that, the debate
27 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 7. 28 Anderson, Imagined Communities, 12.
29 Ronald J. Grele. “Public? Whose History? What Is the Goal of a Public Historian?” The Public Historian 3.1
9
about the concept of the museum will be elaborated on. Finally, this chapter will finish with the changing role of those who create the actual narrative in an exhibition; the curators.
The second part of this thesis will identify the current process of transformation of the two museums. Since this transformation is happening outside academia and often “behind the scenes,” this chapter will be based on observations as well as on semi-structured interviews with the museum staff to get a better understanding of the intentions, the struggles and the perceptions that play an important role in the construction of the current exhibition.30 Interviewees will be asked to reflect on transformation of national identity and the role of the museum and themselves in this process. This target group exists of curators, directors and communication professionals. Both long term employees and short term employees will be part of this group.
30Robert Shell, Diaspora to Diorama,; a guide to the old Slave Lodge CD. (Cape Town: NagsPro Multimedia,
10
P
ARTI
T
HEORETICAL FRAMEWORKC
HAPTER1
T
RANSFORMATION PROCESS FROM GOVERNMENT TO CURATOR1.1. The role of the government
The following subchapter will touch upon the role that the government has in the transformation of the South African heritage sector. After a short summary of the situation before 1994, the concept of soft revolution that the first democratic government implemented, will be introduced. The ideology behind it as well as the way in which it was implemented will be identified. Subsequently the concept and function of the foundation myth will be examined to enable analysis of current narratives that are being constructed. The problematic power of the government in this creation of such a narrative will be discussed before the following subchapter continues on the role that the public and South African communities play in the development of this new narrative.
During apartheid years, the government implemented a division in the heritage sector between “own” and “general” affairs – which was a division between Afrikaner/Western culture and all other cultures in South Africa. Yet, as was mentioned in the introduction of this thesis, objections were already voiced from the heritage sector between 1983 and the 1994 elections. Museum conferences were held by a few liberal museums that opposed specifically this division. Instead of “own” and “general” affairs, four major areas were formulated that needed special attention in the museum according to participating professionals.31
1) Culture – as currently museums lacked representations of non-white cultures. 2) History of working – as a component of the national history was absent in displays. 3) Slavery – as it was a hidden history but a huge contributor to the ‘white’ wealth. 4) Nature – the beauty and wealth, the flora and fauna had always played a role in South
African tourism, but now it needed to be translated to a playground for the white rich as well as a democratically available recourse for all.32
This new structure can be seen as the beginning of transformation ideas. Yet, as the apartheid government still reigned, no major changes were seen in the sector until 1994, when the elections took place. Then these areas of attention were adopted by the new government, leading to a national restructuring from an own-general division to a more cultural-natural division. This specific focus on nature next to culture is explained by Coombes as the most
31 Coombes, History after Apartheid, 153. 32 Coombes, History after Apartheid,, 154.
11
convenient of the areas of attention as it seemed the least intertwined topic in ethnic and race politics and therefore useful as unifying narrative. Both Iziko and Ditsong Museum underwent this change.
In addition other consequences for the construction of the national narrative have been identified by Marschall Coombes and Dubin. A problematic matter is the promised implementation of the government’s ‘democratic,’ values, while at the same time there is a need for the new national narrative to create a sense of unity in a divided South Africa. To combine those two interests in transition, the government implements a “negotiated transition of power,” that is described as the “soft revolution.”33 As Marschall observes, “South Africa has been admired for the miracle of its ‘soft revolution’.”34
One of the most outstanding examples of this approach is the dealing of the new government´s policies with the old historic markers. Usually, when a revolution changes the discourse of a country, the markers of the old power are destroyed.35 In South Africa this almost did not occur , due to the strategy of the ANC, which is best described as rewriting this ‘white’ heritage in the new transformation discourse. A speech of Mandela in 2002 illustrates this policy. As he unveils of the monument of Boer Fighter Danie Theron, he says the Boer fight for freedom inspired him to become a freedom fighter too. This words aim for reconciliation and unity of South Africans, as Marschall observes, claiming ownership of the markers of the old order.36 Indeed, one of the official strategies for creating more balance in the heritage landscape is leaving the old heritage be.37 Coombes argues this is done in order to create space – she argues – for a “a new set of meanings.”38
“Such strategy might have the salutary effect of symbolically putting an aspect of South Africa’s past to rest while opening to scrutiny the very processes by which histories are embodied in the public domain.”39
This is what Colin Fortune, director of Mc Gregor Museum in Kimberly has in mind when he tells Dubin that he “understands that a significant proportion of the local black population considers his establishment a ‘white building’. However, demolishing it would not necessarily change people’s perceptions of the museum’s collection and activities.”40 Indeed, he hopes to address
33 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 336. 34 Ibid.
35 Ibid, 29. 36 Ibid.
37 Goodwin. “A New Direction for Cultural History” (Discussion paper presented in Museum Africa,
October 14, 1991): 168.
38 Coombes, History after Apartheid, 295. 39 Ibid.
12
the local communities to take ownership of the place by retelling its story. However, Coombes argues that some caution should be attained when representing this so-called ‘contested’ heritage, because an exhibition that gives opportunity for critical reflection can be understood by the public as representing the old order, if not clearly communicated.41 More and earlier consultation with the communities could prevent unexpected controversy, Coombes argues. Overall, according to Marshall, Dubin and Coombes, South Africa chose a remarkable strategy when it started with transformation that concerned the imagery of the old order. Instead of breaking away the ‘white’ and colonial heritage, government policies encouraged to leave most old markers standing in to order to create an opportunity to rewrite all these objects, buildings, narratives and statues. Partly this was done to let them serve “as examples of […] those “burdens of history,” partly because it creates a dialog with the past that give the population of the ‘new’ South Africa a chance to get the ownership that was once denied.42 Besides that, another part seems to survive because erasing or replacing the old markers is too expensive.
In short, the soft revolution including the dealing with the old historic markers has been admired from international perspective. Yet the involvement of so many different interests in the transformation debates make the process extremely complicated which Marschall describes as “a delicate balancing act.”43 The results of this approach concerning the markers of the old order are continually debated into the present day. Part II will address the effect of this soft revolution on the way in which the case studies handle their collections that are markers of the old order.
In order for the heritage sector to function as a key factor in the balancing act of nation-building, the new ANC government felt that it needed more transformation.44 Mandela hints in the speech on September 24th 1997, that the government has taken up the challenge of restructuring the museums in order to build a new nation:
“With democracy we have the opportunity to ensure that our institutions reflect history in a way that respects the heritage of all our citizens. Government has taken up the challenge. Our museums and the heritage sector as a whole are being restructured.”45 For these restructuring purpose a Museums and the Reconstruction and Development Program” was introduced shortly after the election in 1994.46 This conference focussed mainly on
41 Dubin, Mounting Queen Victoria, 49. 42 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 29. 43 Ibid., 336.
44 Grobler, “The Impact,” 178.
45Mandela, “Address by Nelson Mandela on Heritage Day, Robben Island.” (Speech given on Heritage Day,
Cape Town, Robben Island, September 24, 1997), Accessed October 20, 2016. http://www.mandela.gov.za/mandela_speeches/1997/970924_heritage.htm
13
“establishing ‘achievable, sustainable [programs to meet] the objectives of freedom and an improved standard of living and quality of life for all South Africans within a peaceful and stable society.”47 Only a few years later did the government publish its first White Paper, a “broad statement of government policy” concerning those transformation targets in the heritage sector.48Based on the those conferences and White Papers, La Chapelle argues that “the government played an important role in the transformation,” [of museums, and in particular that of the Slave Lodge] not only dictating the “funding and structure of the museum,” but also “what the museum memorialized.”49 This ideological influence of the government during the past 20 transformation years can be described as a focus on narrating the unity of South Africa, in an attempt to rebuild the nation. As described in the introduction, this is in line with the way in which Anderson describes that a national narrative is a construction to create unite a group of people that will never meet.50 To underline the idea that this nationhood is not based on reality but on a artificially constructed narrative, this narrative is often referred to as “national myth” or “foundation myth.”51 This is defined in South African context by Marschall as the story of a nation’s origin, mostly publicly represented in official and institutionalized forms of remembrance.52 The following paragraphs will elaborate on the function and the consequences of implementation of such a narrative by the government.
When trying to identify this myth for post-apartheid South Africa, Marschall quotes some scholars who “consider the concept of the ‘rainbow nation’ as the key foundation myth of post-apartheid state.”53 This myth epitomized Mandela’s government of ‘national unity’.54 The rainbow symbolizes that different colors can form one rainbow and people from different backgrounds and skin colours could form a nation in this fashion. This image is created through official and institutionalized forms as political speeches but also the heritage sector. Political scientist Thomas Blaser argues that this myth has the pragmatic reason to reunite the segregated country that South Africa was in 1994. 55 In addition, Dubin agrees that it is
46 Coombes, History After Apartheid, 161.
47 Ibid.; LaChapelle, “Museums and Memory:‘Remembering Slavery’ at the Slave Lodge.” Foundations 2
(2009):111; Strikingly, even with the intention of including all South Africans, these pillars of national identity exclude the history slavery as a basis for South African identity.
48 Department of Arts and Culture, “White Paper on Arts, Culture and Heritage,” Accessed on 24 October
2016.
49 LaChapelle, “Museums and Memory,” 112. 50 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 100 51 Ibid, 200; Grobler, “The Impact,” 164. 52 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 171. 53 Ibid., 173.
54 Coombes, History after Apartheid, 3.
55 Thomas Blaser, “A New South African Imaginary; Nation Building and Afrikaners in Post-Apartheid
14
sometimes helpful when the heritage sector presents such a linear story, to avoid eclecticism and fragmentation and to support cohesion between South Africans.56
However, as Blaser, Coombes and Marschall also observed, this myth has “lost currency over the years,” especially when Thabo Mbeki became president.57 One of the reasons that Mbeki’s politics changes the national myth again according to Blaser, is that the rainbow myth did not create enough space to celebrate the other (non-national) identities which most people identified stronger with.58 From Benedict Anderson’s perspective one could say that the community did not imagine the rainbow narrative. The national myth after Mandela’s rainbow nation is characterized by Coombes and others as the “African Renaissance.”59
“A sympathetic definition might describe it as pan-Africanist philosophy attempting to identify and harness potential alliances (economic, political, and intellectual) from within the African continent as means of shifting the exis [sic.] of power away from neo-colonialist dependency on Western democracies.”60
A less sympathetic definition acknowledges the danger of the African renaissance myth, as this “claims to be inclusive of all South Africans, [it] has also lent itself to a more fundamentalist ethnic absolutism.”61 This Africanist approach is in line with what Blaser as well as Marschall observes.
Attempting to deconstruct the new developing foundation myth, Marshall distinguishes four foundation pillars in the top-down implemented narrative of the ‘new’ South Africa. The first three pillars are re-used foundation narratives of the former dominant groups in the country, which enables to reunite the identity of the Afrikaners (with their struggle against the empty land and the English) and the non-white South African population (with their struggle against apartheid, often referred to as “the Struggle”). The fourth pillar would embody the more Africanist approach that is mentioned above.
1) The meta-narrative of the struggle for liberation 2) Resistance
3) The notion of triumph over oppression
56 Dubin, Mounting Queen Victoria, 258. 57 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 173.
58 Blaser, “A New South African Imaginary,” 183.
59 Coombes, History after Apartheid, 2; Nigel Worden, “Outline Chronology,” in: The Making of Modern
South Africa; Conquest, Apartheid, Democracy, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1994), xvii.
60 Coombes, History after Apartheid, 3. 61 Ibid.
15
4) The concept of Ubuntu “which […] refers to a commonly shared humanity rooted in African values and associated beliefs in romanticized notion of African ‘tradition’ as a means to facilitate reconciliation, healing and moral regeneration for the nation.”62 The Struggle with a capital S is more specifically described by Marschall as “a teleological narrative, implying coherence and unity, a more or less concerted effort towards liberation, led by the ANC and supported by its armed wing.”63 Part II of this thesis will examine the role of this narrative in current exhibitions, elaborating on the reflections of staff members on the way in which this narrative has been implemented.
The role of government policies in this process will be of special attention as, critics argue that the ANC government has too much power ‘promoting’ a narrative of unity in particularly the form of the Struggle. Gary Baines points out that the state-build national narrative can be dangerous, by comparing it to the manner in which the apartheid regime imposed its version of the national myth.64 According to LaChapelle, this happens with many regimes and governments, in order to justify their positions of power.”65 Both Grobler and Baines argue that the narrative that was created after apartheid is similar oppressive in being exclusively the version of the ANC, rather than of the many different communities living in South Africa.66 However, Marschall argues for some nuance on this matter as she observes that a dominant voice is inevitably part of every national discourse and not a particular South African problem in South Africa:
“Cynics may argue that the ANC is abusing its power […] To put this attitude in perspective, it must be remembered that in any nation, including western democracies, monuments reflect dominant ideologies and the heritage field is always gradually reshaped in accordance with policies and values upheld by the government elected by the majority. […] As Linenthal (personal communication 2005) aptly puts it: There is no point in saying heritage is biased, because bias is the whole point of heritage.”67
Yet, in addition to this inescapable bias, she cautiously concludes that there should be limits to the extent to which the national myth is created and presented in the way that the government suggests, as a unifying story from above will not be able to give room to alternative interpretations of the past: “[The] commemorative monuments and other products of the heritage sector delivered by the government limit the choices of how we remember the past,
62 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 173. 63 Ibid., 13.
64 Gary Baines, “The Master Narrative of South Africa’s Liberation Struggle: Remembering and Forgetting
June 16, 1976” International Journal of African Historical Studies 40.2 (2007): 291.
65 LaChapelle, “Museums and Memory,” 109.
66 Baines, “The Master Narrative,” 293; Grobler, “The Impact,” 185. 67 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 125.
16
leaving little room for divergent memories and alternative interpretations.”68 Marschall argues that in order to maintain and strengthen the linear Struggle narrative, this narrative is accompanied by significant silences, the forgetting of uncomfortable memories, and in the hierarchical ordering of victims.69 Indeed, according to Coombes silences are inevitably born out of the need for every narrator that wants to create an interesting, gripping story with preferably a good ending to “suppress such uncomfortable memories because they compromise what is meant to be a tragic but inspiring narrative.”70 Coombes and Marschall identify women’s history, workers history, tribal history, and slavery as examples of these suppressed, uncomfortable histories in South African context.71 Those narratives are in danger of becoming underrepresented and neglected in the heritage sector because they do not attribute to the goal of the government to unify the national identity. In order to enable uncomfortable histories to be represented in the new national narrative, some argue that marginalized voices should be included in the creation of the national narrative. As mentioned in the general introduction, one of the most influential arguments for a more inclusive curatorship in museums came from Keyan Tomaselli and Mewa Rambogin.72 They argued for community involvement because everybody should have the opportunity to tell their own story without compromising to other (inflicting) perspectives. This approach – which will be elaborated on in the third subchapter – seems to fit in the democratic values of the new government and it can thus be seen as part of the soft revolution, alongside the conflicting goal of creating unity that has previously been discussed. Part II will examine the status of the remaining uncomfortable histories in the case studies today. Subsequently, the question will be addressed whether the ANC has been the “main promulgator and interpreter of history” by transforming the heritage sector or if the upcoming trend of giving a voice to communities with “community negotiation and participation at every level,” succeeded in the traditional national museums in South Africa? 73
The following subchapters will continue from different perspectives because according to Anderson, analysing the construction of the national narrative from this political perspective that solemnly focuses on the role of the government is limited, as he argues that the construction of this national myth can not only be understood from a political point of view. It “has to be understood […], not with self-consciously held political ideologies, but with the large cultural systems that preceded it, out of which […] it came into being”.74 A broader perspective on the
68 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 106. 69 Ibid.
70 Ibid.
71 Ibid, 15-16; Coombes, History After Apartheid, 201. 72 Coombes, History after Apartheid, 151.
73 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 199; LaChapelle, “Museums and Memory,” 112; Coombes, History after
Apartheid, 166.
17
construction of national identity can therefore be found in the museums, as they are places where political, academic, as well as practical perspectives intertwine. Thus, the following subchapters will continue about the role of the public, the communities, the conceptualisation of the museum and the curator, in order to get a better understanding of the mix of influences on the process of transformation.
1.2. The role of the public
One important aspect of this large cultural system is the public with its expectations. Moreover, the role of the public in creating national identity forms a corner stone of post-apartheid South Africa, due to the “extreme media coverage on the need to transform,” the growth of the tourist industry and the transformation value of an inclusive narrative. The following paragraphs will therefore elaborate on the role of this public in the transformation processes of a museum.75 According to Dubin the remarkable and problematic issue of public expectations is the demand for racial and ethnical division that he observes is still present in 2009. Illustrating is a conversation with Iziko’s curator Dr Patricia Davidson about the demanded change of categorization of the collections, that were often categorized by race. In order to transform the museum is developing new strategies to change that, Davidson argues. However, the public is not always keen on these transformations away from racial division:
“The irony is that at the same time scientists, scholars, and curators are increasingly viewing race as a cultural construct, many in the general population are embracing it as a distinct, tangible biological entity […]. The more the museums deemphasize race, seeing it as being socially derived, the more likely it is that they will dissatisfy people.”76
This is something the museum curator should inevitable have in mind, agrees Ciraj Rassool – being both an academic and experienced museum official – when trying to address and include many different perspectives. A moral consideration then comes into the play.77
In addition to this problematic public expectation, general observations have been made by Dubin and Marshall about the impossible merge of all public perspectives. The South African histories of colonialism and apartheid form the divided background of the South African public. When trying to represent everybody one comes to the conclusion that some histories are impossible to merge and unite. There are people who feel their heritage becomes more neglected every year, while on the other hand another part of the public thinks the
75Carohn Cornell,“Whatever became of Cape slavery in Western Cape museums?” Kronos 25 (1998-1999):
256; Jackie Grobler, “The Impact”, 164.
76 Dubin, Mounting Queen Victoria, 258.
18
transformation to a more inclusive set of narratives is going too slow. 78 They press for a more “radical dealing with contested aspects of white heritage.”79 It is a debate continuing from the first democratic election until now. As Marschall stresses: “While it is important to highlight how much memorials and monuments can mean to some, it is equally important to point out that for others, newly installed heritage sites are markers of fractured society.”80 Her nuances are only endorsed by Cliffort’s observation that even communities are not homogenous. When a group is unified in one part of the narrative, it is possible that this group will disagree on other part, and thus fall apart.81
Summarizing, in order to relate to the public, museums have to deal with the many possible and sometimes competing perspectives of the public. Structuring the wide range of public that the museum needs to address, two prominent public identities are identified as specially relevant in context of transformation. First, the communities, especially those who were formerly excluded from representation in the heritage sector. Secondly, the overseas tourists – for their financial input can make their expectations leading in the construction of the new narrative. Before going into the role of the overseas tourists, the relation of the transforming museum with the communities will be discussed. After apartheid, most museums started from scratch when it came to the inclusion of all South Africans. Coombes and Dubin prove that a large group of former politically excluded South African identities does not feel represented in the national museums.82 Dubin illustrates this as followed:
“Alien. Irrelevant. Unfamiliar. Peripheral. Black people use these adjectives time and again when describing the relationship between members of their communities and museums. And while most South African museum officials today would deny that there were explicit restrictions against admitting black Africans during apartheid, other remember those times differently.”83
In addition, Nelson Mandela’s speech during Heritage Day 1997 describes the poor state of the heritage sector at that moment: “Ninety-seven percent of their displays reflected colonialist and apartheid point of views.”84 This critic made quite an impression on the heritage sector as Dubin reports in 2009 that “museums now […] justify their existence by linking themselves to social
78 Grobler, “the Impact,” 184.
79 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 168. 80 Ibid., 132.
81 James Clifford, “Museums as Contact Zones.” In Routes, Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth
Century. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 208.
82 Coombes, History after Apartheid, 166. 83 Dubin, Mounting Queen Victoria, 48. 84 Dubin, Mounting Queen Victoria, 2.
19
agendas that command broader support.”85 According to their annual reports, this observation is applicable to both Ditsong Cultural History Museum as well as Iziko Slave Lodge, as they underline the goal to be a “museum for all” and “accessible for all.”86 A survey was held in 1990, based on 106 participants including different minority groups being women, workers and representatives of cultural associations (Afrikaans, Indian, Zulu, Chinese i.a.).87 This survey showed that no one who was defined as ‘black’ went to a museum ‘to learn more about [their] own people’. Moreover, the negative answers given by the respondents were mostly about the museums being “irrelevant” because “[they] are not representative for all South Africans.”88 In all cases, the formerly excluded communities felt that the museum was not a place where they could find themselves represented in 1990. In addition, research in 1994 showed that there was no broad public support for museums in South Africa. “African people” did not visit museums “because they don’t feel part of them. They don’t think that museums preserve their past.”89 A way to address this problem is to equally ‘inscribe’ the heritage of previously marginalized South Africans in the exhibitions. Marschall identifies many initiatives that try to do that by using the perspective of multi-racial identity. An exhibition is then “focusing on historical events that involved multi-racial role players,” as to avoid racial determination or even exclusion. 90 “They aim to provide symbols of identification for diverse viewers across racial and ethnic lines, encouraging people to think of themselves as South Africans first, and only in the second instance as Indian, Zulu, Xhosa, or Afrikaner.”91 Yet, not all heritage sites addressed this issue in a satisfying way. Dubin observes that some museums went for this popular inclusion-strategy, but did not apply it deeply in their museum narrative. They for example added artefacts in different lay outs, Dubin describes, so the display seems “cobbled together,” sustaining with this the exclusion of the formerly excluded.92 As a result, this did not “significantly expand the scope of a museum or its appeal to a broader audience.”93 Coombes therefore argues that “it is not enough to simply exhibit signs of creative cross-cultural exchange and modernity […]. It is
85 Dubin, Mounting Queen Victoria, 227.
86Iziko Museums, “Home Page.” Accessed July 26, 2016. http://www.iziko.org.za/museums/slave-lodge;
Ditsong Museums, “National Museum of Cultural History” Accessed October 21, 2016. http://www.ditsong.org.za/culturalhistory.htm
87 Coombes, History after Apartheid, 175. 88 Ibid.
89 Ditsong Museums, “About Us,” Accessed on October 16, 2016. Ditsong.org.za/aboutus.htm; Coombes,
History after Apartheid, 166.
90 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 340. 91 Ibid.
92 Dubin, Mounting Queen Victoria, 237. 93 Dubin, Mounting Queen Victoria, 237.
20
necessary to demonstrate a sense of people as subjects with the agency to be able to affect their own history.”94 The attempt to include communities will be examined in the next subchapter. In addition, another problem has been identified by Dubin when a museum tries to include and address everything and everyone without offending anyone else. This approach will result in what Dubin describes as a total avoidance of any sign or word that can suggest exclusion or dogma,95 which on one hand creates more accessible and less intimidating or offending museums, that subsequently will live up to the wish of reaching out to a broader public. On the other hand, these museums retreats from saying anything definitive and with this, they become eclectic, forfeit any distinctive claims to knowledge they may have.96 People might not be able to identify as nothing is really represented, or worse, some might be offended by it.97
In short, specifically the non-white South African communities did not feel represented in the museums – preserved as ‘white’ institutions. Transformation policies urged museums to aim for a more inclusive narrative, for example by narrating multiracial narratives. However, Dubin warns that an exhibition remains problematic when the ‘new’ included histories are not incorporated deeply enough in the museum. In these cases, the apartheid distinctions are once again re-established.98 Moreover, when aiming for the broadest range of South African public, the museum might end up with such an eclectic representation that makes it for any visitor hard – if not impossible – to identify with. How both Iziko and Ditsong did develop concerning the representation of previously excluded communities will be examined in Part II.
A second prominent public identity in relation to the museum’s transformation process is the international tourist. Tourism has become a major industry in South Africa in the past decades.99 The tourist imagery before 1994 created by government policies from 1920 onwards with one clear message:
“[The materials provided an image of] a vast landscape populated almost entirely by large beasts, with no black figure in sight. Humans of the white variety […], were represented as gentle consumers profiting from the meticulously conserved natural environment.”100
94 Coombes, History after Apartheid 242. 95 Coombes, History after Apartheid, 258 96 Ibid.
97 Clifford, “Museums as Contact Zones,” 206. See for a more elaborate account Chapter 3 of this thesis. 98 Coombes, History after Apartheid, 196. Example of dancing mine workers in Gold Reef City.
99 Grobler, “The Impact”, 164.
21
After apartheid was overthrown Marschall observes expanding groups of tourists that arrive to see the scary South Africa that they know from the news. They come to experience the applauded change, in combination with the expectations of the natural imagery:
“Many foreign tourists arrived to be part of the experience of a crucial historical moment and look in on a society in transformation – long closed off through stigma yet well-known through the media – while concurrently enjoying the country’s legendary scenic beauty and recreational opportunities.”101
In 2006 more than eight million foreign tourists came to South Africa to visit heritage and cultural sites.102 One of the reasons for this expansion might be the new government encouragement of the (international) tourist market, as the overseas tourist interest would give the marginalized histories the financial boost they would need to become part of the heritage sector.103 Besides that, the idea was kept that presenting the South African narratives and histories to the outsider would presumably give a boost to community pride as well.104In short, the overseas tourists came with expectations and in big numbers. It is therefore likely that the tourist – and the tourist gaze – plays a major role in the transformation of national narrative in the museums.
Indeed, in his article “Revisualizing Township Tourism in the Western Cape” historian Leslie Witz describes how “places and their histories come to be reconstituted along tourist routes.”105 Witz’ case study of the Lwandle Migrant Labour Museum shows what enormous effect the tourist industry had on the (national) discourse of this museum and museum sector in general. His analysis is build on the developments from the moment this museum decides to fit in the ‘new’ tourist discourse in order to become part of the touristic ‘township route’. The result of this choice was an imagery that is based on ethnical and racial division as it consisted of traditional outfits, the imagery on ‘tribes’ that was used during apartheid years is once again “repackaged as ‘language culture, traditions, societal values, indigenous knowledge and the philosophy of Ubuntu.106 Therefore, Witz argues that the intentions of the Lwandle Migrant Labour Museum to tell the story of the history of migrancy “slipped into tourist expectations of
101 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 340. 102 Grobler, “The Impact,” 164-167.
103 Irma Booyens, “Rethinking Township Tourism; Towards a more responsible tourism development in
South African townships,” Development Southern Africa 27.2 (2010): 273-287.
104 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 306; Government of South Africa, “Chapter 5,“ in: White Papers,
Accessed October 24, 2016. http://www.gov.za/documents/white-papers.
105 Leslie Witz, “Revisualizing Township Tourism in the Western Cape; The Migrant Labour Museum and
the Re-Construction of Lwandle.” Journal of Contemporary African Studies 29.4 (2011): 271-388.
22
‘authentic Africa.’”107 In accordance to Lesie Witz’ observation of reconstituted histories along tourist routes, Sabine Marschall observes: “As tourism actively appropriates the memory landscape, emphasizing some memories and downplaying others, history is framed in a particular way, often in line with destination branding efforts and hegemonic political discourses.”108 Hence, the tourist industry has to be part of every evaluation of nation building, as nation building and the tourist gaze become intertwined and can be problematic like at Lwandle Migrant Museum.
Another major influence of the overseas tourist on the transformation of the national narrative is the lifeline that tourism can entail for white contested heritage.109 Statistics show that worldwide many European people travel to the country that was previously colonized by their homeland. They are “without doubt attracted to the architectural remnants and other traces testifying to the presence and activities of their forefathers.110 In South Africa, Marschall identifies a large part of British tourists that are interested in the battlefields where their heroic ancestors fought and perhaps lost their lives. However, these battlefields form contested heritage in post-apartheid South Africa, as the majority of its population perceives these colonial heritage sites as “white heritage.”111 One of the reasons this heritage is still present in such large numbers, is this group of tourists that has money to spend, which proves that financial considerations play a decisive role in transformation processes of the museum and should be taken into account when analyzing the construction of the national narrative.
In short, the overseas tourist gaze should be taken into account as factor in creating the new narrative because problematic and untransformed tourist expectations can have their effect on the discourse of the museum. According to Witz, critical thought from the museums should oppose these racial and ethnic separation discourses that this type of tourism brings along. In addition, Marschall identified a lifeline for contested white heritage as many international European tourists come to see the colonial heritage of their own country.
1.3. Community involvement
One of the solutions to eliminate the exclusion of the non-white heritage in the years after apartheid is community involvement.112 This was defined during international museum forums
107 Witz, “Revisualizing Township Tourism,” 380. Witz’ solution against township tourism that
reestablishes a narrative of difference and racial separation, is to be found in the attitude of the museum. The museum should, according to Witz, establish itself as a destination instead of being part in a township route, as the township route and its stops are comprehended as ‘places of difference’.
108 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 307-308. 109 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 309. 110 Ibid.
111 Ibid.
112 The use of ‘community’ implies that it is not making racial differences. Therefore it has become a
23
to establish wide consultation and active participation from the members of the public who are not professionally engaged in museums.113 This shift in focus of the debate can be seen as part of the democratic transformation South Africa, an attempt to overcome the possibility of a new oppressive state that decides on the national and cultural discourse. Due to this motivation and along with other financial reasons (subsidies from the government made this process very lucrative for some time), some museums were created primarily for this purpose.114 Examples include District Six Museum in Cape Town and the Apartheid Museum in Johannesburg, where the focus of the narrative is personal and based on oral history projects with the local communities. Other already existing South African museums also started projects that were based on involving ‘the communities’. An early example of a traditional museum to involve communities in the creation of a site is the Tswaing Crater.115 The project was initiated by Ditsong National Cultural History Museum to develop the area as a natural heritage site including a community museum. Coombes gives a detailed description of the intentions and the challenges that this project brought. As the process did not went smoothly with many misunderstandings between different community groups as well as the museum, in the end it was decided to quit with many of the community parts, and the Crater today is part of the natural department of Ditsongs. Coombes concludes that “Apartheid’s divisive strategies had left in place some intractable antagonisms that are dramatized on occasions such as the Tswaing experiment.116 Because it proved very difficult to create the ‘exhibition’ peacefully together as conflicts strongly related to apartheid division constantly arose. She argues that the process of The Tswaing Crater Project should be a lesson for many other community involved initiatives. Part II will examine how both case studies handle these obstacles that arise when including the perspective of communities in the exhibitions.
1.4. The museum concept
Another major issue that became relevant during transformation debates is identified by Dubin, Marschall and Coombes as the question if the museum institution is a fixed Western concept. In relation to transformation, some dispute this fixed concept, proposing an African concept to replace it. In addition, a third argument to accept the idea of a hybridized post-colonial society with ditto museum has also been heard. Dubin illustrates the first perspective by quoting Colonel Frik Jacobs:
racial division, argues Coombes. That is why the concept does not do justice to the “complex political culture” that exists in the broader sense of communities. Coombes, History after Apartheid, 4.
113 Marschall, Landscape of Memory., 4. 114 Ibid., 163.
115 Ibid., 166. 116 Ibid., 173.
24
“People of European descent understand museums, and museums have relevance for them. The real African people are still not comfortable with the museum concept. So there’s some missionary work to be done [emphasis added].”117
Even though this sounds like an awfully persistent thought of both apartheid and colonialism, the first part of the quote is agreeing on Marschall’s observation that heritage sites tend to be formed in European fashion.118 She explains this with South Africa’s colonial past, as in this period a set of meanings settled that is used in South Africa until today.119 This set of meanings stayed, she explains, because every counter initiative to colonialism is presented with this same set of meanings:
“As the colonizer used statues to parade his heroes, the post-colonial society identifies its own heroes and likewise celebrates them through statues in a deliberate or subconscious act of appropriating the colonizer’s own visual and commemorative ‘language’.”120
Therefore, it can be argued that both Ditsong National Cultural History Museum and Iziko Slave Lodge of today are still based on “the Eurocentric model and Western dominated conventions” of telling stories.121 There is a call from different politically committed communities to abandon this European form and the ‘African” way of telling stories. Unfortunately, apartheid legacy is never far away in this debate, as Dubin illustrates with the following interview:
“Henriette Ridley, assistant director of the Voortrekkers Museum in Pietermaritzburg, understands that change is as critical to institutions as it is to individuals. She reflects: “I feel hesitant in saying this, in my opinion what appeals to the African South Africans is much more things like oral history […] or a living museum where there is dancing and singing. I think they want a more interactive place.”122
Ridley argues that museums for ‘African’ South Africans should look differently, as ‘they’ attracted by a different concept of the museum. However, Marschall argues convincingly that it would be a bad practice to neglect the many influences and developments that changed South African society – including ‘Africans’ – in the past 500 years. She argues:
117 Dubin, Mounting Queen Victoria, 49. 118 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 298.
119 ‘Meaning’ used in the sense of what is described as ‘signifier’ in semiotic studies.
120 Hans-Jürgen Lüsebrink “Geschichtskulur im (post-)kolonialen Kotext,” in Aleida Asmann. Erinnerung,
Geschichte, Identität 3 (1999), 417-418.
121 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 264. 122 Dubin, Mounting Queen Victoria, 49.
25
“If widely accepted that African culture even in the most remote areas has dynamically changed and been hybridized, if not completely westernized, why should new monuments as symbolic cultural products not be allowed to reflect just that?”123
In short, there are different opinions on the conceptual status of the museum and its possibilities to change in order to adjust to transformation values. This is an important debate that is still ongoing which. In Part II of this thesis, the current reflections of the museum staff of Iziko and Ditsong will give an inside in the development of this debate into the present day and the effects of their perspective on the transformation process.
1.5. Restrictions of the curator´s perspective
A final factor in the actual transformation of the national narrative in the museum is identified by Coombes as the curator. As is discussed in the previous paragraphs, transformation policies urge for a representation of history that appeals to a broader audience, especially to those who were formerly excluded from representation and the national narrative. This new approach can be difficult for the curator as he will always be bound to his own perspective. To illustrate this hurdle of one’s own perspective in the process of inclusion, Coombes looks back to the opening of the exhibition “Birds in a Cornfield” in MuseuMAfricA in Johannesburg, over which the press release claimed that it was “a museum for all.”124 For this exhibition the curator tried to include a history that was not represented in the museum sector at that moment: the informal housing and the squatter’s movement of Johannesburg. “Everyone knows how white people live. But only black people know how black people live,” the curator explains her choice for this exhibition.125 The critic of journalist Ivor Powell in the Weekly Mail and Guardian, illustrates the difficult but undeniable limits of the spectator and the community to which he or she belongs, as he argues that this exhibition displays the township shacks “into ethnography – for whites that is. For a whole lot of the ‘all’ the museum is aimed to serve, it’s a lived environment.”126 In short, Powell argues that the exhibition addresses mainly the ‘white’ population for whom this history is unknown and unlived. However, remarks from one of the shack owners proved that not everybody looked at it from Powell’s ‘white’ point of view, as the original owner of the shack expresses: “I am very happy to see my shack at the museum. History is not Jan Riebeeck or Nelson Mandela. What we are doing here is for our children. Maybe in 20 years’ time we will be having houses and not shacks anymore, and my home will be part of history.”127 Very important for this understandable differentiation in experience is that one cannot look beyond one’s own
123 Marschall, Landscape of Memory, 303. 124 Coombes, History after Apartheid, 183.
125 Louise Marsland, “Saving Shacks Life for Posterity” Saturday Star, July 30, 1990.
126 Ivor Powell “Something New, Something Old” Weekly Mail and Guardian, August 14, 1994. Accessed
October 13, 2016. http://mg.co.za/article/1994-08-12-something-new-something-old
