CHAPTER 5. CONTESTED PLACE AND CONTESTED MUSEUMS
5.3 The Msunduzi Museum Incorporating the Voortrekker Complex
5.3.1 The Blood River Heritage Site
The Blood River Heritage Site, situated in the rural area Nqutu, close to Dundee in Northern KwaZulu-Natal, is a memorial at the site where the battle of Blood River took place. In 1967 it was proclaimed a national monument and a replica of a granite oxwagon was placed where the Voortrekkers outlined their laager (Governmental Notice 1403 of 8 September 1967). In 1971 a construction of a life-size laager consisting of 64 oxwagons cast in bronze was placed at the original battle site, but it was not until 1996 that a visitor centre and a museum were introduced (Girshick 2003: 3). From 1989-2002 the site was managed by the Msunduzi Museum (VM) and since 2002 it has been supervised by the Voortrekker Monument.
The Blood River Heritage Site is an Afrikaner memorial and has been strongly associated with the apartheid regime (Mapalala, Kuene, Laband, Hamilton & Groebler 1998). Together with the Voortrekker Monument (Pretoria) and the Taalmonument (Paarl), the Blood River Heritage Site constitutes one of Afrikanerdom´s major monuments. Traditionally and symbolically the mythology of the battle and the place came to mark the beginning of
Afrikaner dominance, reinforcing historical stereotypes about Zulu ‘barbarism’ and
‘treachery’ and Afrikaners as God´s chosen people (Mapalala, Kuene, Laband, Hamilton &
Groebler 1998). As mentioned previously, the Blood River Heritage Site was used in apartheid politics and contributed to a dominant narrative of the place that neglected alternative versions. Although the African narrative was subversive, it still existed and challenged the dominant one.
Power relations are institutionally embedded and always involve one or more acting individuals (Pred 1986: 25-26). A counter-collective of agents can activate and narrate the contested and conflicting meaning of a place and construct their own version of its importance. According to Sithole (1998: 10-11) and the report of the panel of historians (July 1998), English-speakers regarded the battle as a central event in South African history and Africans as a symbol of struggle. Afrikaners came to use the place and the event in political propaganda during the 20th century, and 16th December was held as a national holiday.80 These celebrations became increasingly politicised and culminated in 1938 in the centenary of the Great Trek when DF Malan declared the Blood River site ‘holy ground’. This forms part of the associated meaning at present which makes it a highly contested place.
The Blood River Heritage Site has been narrated and legitimised as an Afrikaner physical remembrance of the ‘right’ to land in South Africa (past and present) and as the materialisation of the struggle and achievement of the forefathers. Natal was referred to as Caanan and the battle as the clash between Satan (Zulu) and the children of God (Afrikaners) or a battle between paganism and Christianity (report of the panel of historian July 1998).
Some Afrikaner writers had since the 1940s warned against this kind of self-glorification that legitimised white dominance and by the 1970s there were debates among Afrikaner intellectuals, theologians, journalists and politicians on the issue (report of the panel of historians July 1998). Public critique included Reverend J Gertenbach of the DRC, quoted in The Natal Witness (1971-12-17):
To equate the Afrikaner volk with Israel is to deny Christ and the uniqueness of his redemption. To describe Blood River as a ‘miracle’ is misleading because miracles cannot be proclaimed in human nationalism. To turn Blood River into an event justifying selfish separation and apartheid for the special Afrikaner people brings us to the level of the Pharisee who prayed ‘I thank thee, Lord, that I am not of these men’.
80 Today the day is called the day of reconciliation.
After 1994 most Afrikaner heritage sites in the country were handed over to, and administered from, the Voortrekker Monument in Pretoria. After the democratic election in 1994 it was clearly stipulated by director Pols and the Board of Trustees of the Msunduzi Museum (VM) that they needed to remain objective, non-political and neutral about the Blood River Site (MEVM 1997-02-14). The battle at Blood River had been portrayed as a pivotal event to the Great Trek, an event that ‘saved’ Afrikaner people and created Afrikaners as a group (report of the panel of historians July 1998). These were very strong identity markers that gave the place its sacred and political meaning. In post-1994 these connotations needed to be renegotiated so that the place could be appropriated in a larger South African cultural context.
Considering the contested meaning and constituted identity, such an undertaking was highly problematic to all the groups involved. Although the emphasis was to deconstruct the contested meanings of the place, Girshick (2003: 3) holds that the decision to add a Zulu component in 1998 was not undisputed and met with resistance from militant Afrikaners.
Changes were decided on, carried out and implemented by the government, but the general Afrikaner public did not appear to be in favour of these changes.
Today spectres of Afrikaner nationalism still continue to haunt the Blood River Heritage Site.
Until the present time clashes between groups at the place still occur. At the 16th December 2004 celebration an African journalist was not welcomed and was called a ‘kaffir’ but his White colleague was allowed to stay. A German tourist and his ‘black partner’ were told to leave the bronze wagon by members of the Daughters of Zion,81 a group which was banned after the incident (The Witness 2004-12-20). At my visit to the site in 2007 I was retold that the director of the Msunduzi Museum had to wait at the gate for the director of the Voortrekker Monument to accompany him to the traditional morning prayer at the bronze wagon laager, and that African staff-members of the Msunduzi Museum were asked if they were not on the wrong side.82 The feeling of cultural belonging and exclusion is strong at this place to such an extent that at times it excludes other groups. The Blood River site still forms a part of a tradition for Afrikaner families who camp there on 16th December. Bishop (2005- 12-17) holds that some even wear Voortrekker dress when celebrating the event.
At my visit to the site in 2007 people were camping outside the monument, but I did not note any Voortrekker outfits. In the bronze laager a small group of people were blowing horns and
81 A religious and nationalist Afrikaner group.
82 Meaning that they should be on the other side of the river iNcome were the Ncome Museum stands.
parading the Orange Freestate flag83 and the Transvaal Republic flag84 with the Hebrew letters YaHWeH (Jehovah) on the white stripe. Etta Judson85 identified the flag and the group as the Daughters of Zion. She described them as a ‘fundamentalist religious group’ who were trespassing because there was a police interdict against them entering the terrain. The Voortrekker Monument disassociates itself from the Daughters of Zion and their ideologies (letter from Judson 2008-03-18). It must be clearly pointed out that this celebration was not orchestrated by the Blood River Heritage Site, but was an individual initiative from the group.
The sentiments of the Boer Republic that played an important role in Afrikaner nationalism were, I conclude, clearly acted out by the Daughters of Zion parading with flags. While they were doing this at a Voortrekker site they emphasised a connection between the two pillars that Afrikaner nationalism rested on. They linked different times and spaces together in one patriotic expression.
Reading the vow, praying, dressing up in Voortrekker outfits, and parading flags is a physical re-enactment at a particular site that creates a bond with history. This is a manifestation of ancestry and a demonstration of citizenship. The actors manifest and strengthen the right to land and to be regarded as both African and South African, reflecting that they are indigenously African parallel to any other cultural expression in the region. At present Afrikaner identity is experiencing a crisis, since they are dealing at the same time with the apartheid past and are trying to reform and appropriate their identity in keeping with new democratic ideals. Blood River is a contested place that has difficulties in conforming to the new democratic dispensation due to its association and function in the past drawing on segregation between groups. Therefore it functions as a site that manifests separation rather than reconciliation.