South African Monuments

Apartheid Museum

The apartheid museum is often seen as a place remembering the atrocities of the past and commemorating the struggle of the black people. The emphasis on black is no coincidence, there is very little here that shows the struggle of others, or even shows the ruling ANC as anything besides the victim. In fact the creation of the museum was in response to a requirement by the then ‘new’ ANC government, which required casinos to provide a way to attract tourists, before the government would issue a gambling license. And as such the museum is on a ‘donated’ lease from Gold Reef City, for the duration of its casino license, as admitted by the Apartheid museum, stating on its website “The museum is registered as a Section 21 company (incorporated not for gain) with an independent board of trustees, the chairman of which is Dr John Kani. The company is separate from Gold Reef City, which has leased the museum to the Section 21 company for the duration of the casino license.”
However before one looks at the bias present in this museum, and how it is used to give a very one sided opinion of apartheid which is in full support of the ‘victimized’ ANC, one must look at what the Apartheid Museum is supposed to be representing, again we look to the Apartheid Museum’s website. “The Apartheid Museum, the first of its kind, illustrates the rise and fall of apartheid. For anyone wanting to understand and experience what apartheid South Africa was really like, a visit to the Apartheid Museum is fundamental. The museum is a beacon of hope showing the world how South Africa is coming to terms with its oppressive past and working towards a future that all South Africans can call their own.”
While yes it does show parts and aspects of apartheid South Africa, it does not tell the whole story. Having recently been to the museum I noticed a few things which are bias in their representation and don’t give the complete story. (Too be honest I only picked most of this up because I went around with a ‘slightly’ cynical, staunch Afrikaner)
In the one exhibit there is a large black and white photo of the devastation wrought to Boer farms during the (politically correct) South African War - but, strangely enough, nothing of the 26 000 women and children who died in the concentration camps. In another there is a flickering film produced during the 30s to depict Afrikaner history - showing happy Malay slaves, the Great Trek and the massacre of Piet Retief. A panel on education highlights the early-50s quote by Verwoerd that blacks should not be educated beyond a certain level but there is no explanation why there were more black tertiary students than whites by 1989.
Everywhere there are images of unrelenting black poverty and repression but nothing about the fact that the gap between white and black incomes had been closing by 10% each decade since 1970.
Now I am not saying that the Apartheid Museum is anti-white due homage is paid to ‘good' whites who supported the struggle - the Braam Fischers, Neil Aggetts and Ruth Firsts - to avoid any accusation that the exhibition is in any way anti-white. But there is nothing about the contribution that the supposedly ‘bad' whites made to the development of the country; very little about the factors that motivated successive generations of white voters; and hardly anything about the global context within which all of this took place.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the museum is a 20-minute large screen film of the unrest of the 1980s. It includes many of the images of the turmoil that have now largely been forgotten; riot police chasing protesters over barbed wire fences; soldiers firing tear-gas; undulating seas of chanting and toy-toying demonstrators. Young black veterans of the struggle explain with almost great conviction and emotion, the necessity of ‘necklacing' informers. The film ends with the claim that it was all this that forced the apartheid government to the negotiating table, there is no possibility that there might have been any worthy motive. After that it all changes. F W de Klerk is given credit for his role in the process and Roelf Meyer boyishly explains how the transition liberated whites as well.
One must wonder what emotions are stirred up as busload after busload of black school children pass wide-eyed through the museum, or perhaps the emotions that are felt by young white South African’s are lead to believe that for so many years their forefathers were so inhumane and violent to the black people.
Truth be told, this is not the first time one has considered the emotions of young white South African’s who pass through this museum. In an article on the alienation of Afrikaner youth, Prof Jonathan Jansen, the vice chancellor of the University of the Free State, wrote that the only way that "racist sentiment could be overcome was if we stopped reinforcing the idea black was good and white was bad, and to recognize each other as human beings." He then asked "Can you imagine what it is like walking through the Apartheid Museum as a white child? To have the knowledge of what your fathers did - it's the unbearable whiteness of being."
This is the true problem with the Apartheid Museum; it provides a single story to a very complicated time in South Africa’s history. It is the power of this story which could lead to an indoctrination of the ignorant masses. Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie believes in the power of stories, and warns that hearing only one about a people or nation leads to ignorance. She says the truth is revealed by many tales.
To be truly effective this is what the Apartheid Museum needs to incorporate, multiple stories showing the massive amount of different facets to the story that is Apartheid. If not, this place which is seen a place that “ illustrates the rise and fall of apartheid” will become a place which will just incite more hatred of a minority group of South Africa, in a country which has had enough racial hatred.

Never, never, and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another and suffer the indignity of being the skunk of the world.
- Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela

Voortrekker Monument

“The majestic Voortrekker Monument is situated in the northern part of South Africa in the Pretoria (Tshwane) region in a nature reserve. It is a unique monument which commemorates the Pioneer history of Southern Africa and the history of the Afrikaner and is situated in a beautiful setting. Today it is the most visited heritage site of its kind in Gauteng and one of the top ten cultural historical visitor attractions in the country.” This is off the welcome page of the Voortrekker Monuments website, and already hints at the political ‘touchiness’ of such a monument.
The Voortrekker Monument is established as a heritage site to the Voortrekkers of the Great Trek. It highlights episodes of Afrikaner heroism, and the hardships that they experienced during the long trek towards the interior. Africans are shown as barbaric hordes, though the Zulus are shown as physically powerful and large in numbers. By highlighting the physical strength of the enemy, the heroism of the Trekkers is emphasized, the bias in this uncategorically obvious.
The Voortrekker Monument is not only about Afrikaner heritage. It also has political and ideological considerations left over from the white supremacist ideology (not apartheid ideology as construction had started before the National Party came to power and instituted Apartheid). Whites are portrayed as heroes, while Africans are seen as the enemy. This was a way of justifying the policies of apartheid that were a part of South African history for much of the 20th century.
I noticed a lot of this bias on a recent trip to the monument, very similar to the one I took to the Apartheid Museum although minus the ‘slightly’ cynical, staunch Afrikaner.
It is a massive granite structure that rises out of the top of a hill and can be seen for miles. As I said it was built to commemorate the Dutch settlers who trekked inland from the Cape colony in the 1800′s and has become a fairly controversial site since the end of apartheid. Until 1994 only whites were allowed to visit it and the walls inside are ringed by a large fresco depicting the history of the Great Trek. While it’s quite impressive to see, it is a prime example of how history is written by the victor. I’m glad that I had the opportunity to study the history of South Africa and the Voortrekkers before visiting it because it helped add some perspective. While it can’t be denied that the Voortrekkers were incredibly hardy and brave people who accomplished a very impressive task, the monument is relatively one sided. The conflicts between the trekkers and the various African tribes they encountered on their way north are portrayed in a way that I would have to describe as somewhat less than objective.
I was curious to see what black South Africans thought of it and was lucky enough to talk to one of the staff at the monument about it for a while(a black lady whose name I can sadly not remember). I was very impressed by her answer. She said that there had been some talk of tearing it down when apartheid ended but that she disagreed with people who thought that way. She said that while she knew the history it showed was biased the monument itself was a part of history and worth maintaining and visiting for that reason.
History should not be erased, regardless of whether or not it’s pleasant. In fact, unpleasant history is often the kind that it is most important to remember. Considering everything that has happened in this country I greatly admire this understanding and tolerance and think that the fact that the monument still stands is a testament to the impressive spirit of reconciliation that was pursued following the fall of apartheid. Over the years, the monument has played host to everyone from presidents to fascist right-wing leaders, normally on or around December 16 every year.
And that’s the point of the whole monument. The frieze around the monument depicts the Voortrekkers’ successful defense of their laager at the Battle of Blood River in KwaZulu-Natal after Trekker leader Piet Retief and other members of his party were killed by Zulu king Dingaan at the royal kraal.
After the Boer victory at Blood River, the surviving trekkers made a covenant with God that they would remember the victory at noon on December 16 every year.
This is the whole reason for the monument itself. Right at the top is a dome there is a hole on the side. At noon on December 16 every year, the sun shines through the whole, lights up the dome and then shines a beam of light straight down the 40m to a basement in which lies a granite slab, which covers the cenotaph, inscribed “Ons vir Jou, Suid Afrika”.
This is the thing with the Voortrekker Monument, yes it is extremely biased, and yes it is promoting white supremacy, but everyone know this and therefore can understand it and discard its bias. Unlike the Apartheid Museum, it is know that this was constructed in a time when it was widely considered, by both whites and non white people, that whites were the superior race. On the other hand the Apartheid Museum has been constructed in a time when racial tolerance and objectiveness are considered norms for a museum, and this is where the harmlessness of the Voortrekker Monument, and the potential for grave harm by the Apartheid Museum lies.

Bibliography The following cites where used in the creation of this assignment: http://www.iol.co.za/saturday-star/the-past-is-a-different-country-1.1371365#.UEziM8Egfh4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voortrekker_Monument http://www.voortrekkermon.org.za/mon.php http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/constructing-heritage-and-heritage-resources-grade-10 http://headlongintoafrica.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/the-voortrekker-monument/ http://idiots-mind.blogspot.com/2008/05/voortrekker-monument-and-skanskop-fort.html http://academic.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/0534590535_51897.pdf http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8676145/content/71511803-nelson-mandela-was-elected-south-africa-s-first-post-apartheid-president-in-1994?window_location=192 http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-21/opinion/ted.talk.adichie.excerpt_1_roommate-story-random-house?_s=PM:OPINION http://www.apartheidmuseum.org/content/home http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=102440&sn=Detail http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100405070706AA015k8