DATA ANALYSIS: THE NATURE OF HERITAGE IN SELECTED GRADE 10 HISTORY TEXTBOOKS
4.1 Introduction
4.4.2 Interpretation of heritage in case study 1
This section seeks to clarify the description provided in sub section 4.4.1. In Table 4.6 below the data are categorised into the different conceptual indicators of heritage in order to establish the nature of heritage representation based on these different benchmarks. In other words, the points discussed in the description phase above will be seen through the lens of the benchmarks of heritage as per the conceptual framework so as to understand the nature of heritage representation of heritage in this book from the perspective of these benchmarks.
Table 4.6 Interpretation of heritage in case study 1 – Making history. Grade 10. Learner’s book
Indicators Signifiers/Lexicons Tangible, Intangible, or
IN-Tangible heritage
Natural Heritage -Table Mountain
-Ncome River IN-Tangible heritage
103 Cultural
Heritage
Symbolic-Identity Heritage
-Columbus Day -Van Riebeeck Day
-Indigenous American Day -Founders Day
-Settlers Day
-America’s independence day -Day of Reconciliation
-Day of the Vow -Dingaan’s Day -Day of Covenant
Intangible heritage
-Columbus
-George Washington
-President Benjamin Harrison -Franklin D. Roosevelt
-President Johnson -Jan van Riebeeck -Dingane
-Piet Retrief -Andries Pretorius -P. W. Botha -Mpande -Cecil Rhodes
Intangible heritage
-America -United States -Asia
-England
-South Africa as a nation -Boer Transvaal Republic -Transvaal and Free State Republics
-Union of South Africa -Republic of Natalia
-Columbus circle in New York City
-Voortrekker Monument
Intangible heritage
-Christian holidays -Christmas
-Easter
-Dutch Reform Church -Jameson Raid
-Afrikaner Nationalist Movements
-Afrikaner identity -Volksplanter
-White South African Identity -Anti van Riebeeck meetings -‘Weenen
-Battle of Blood River -Umkhonto we Sizwe -Voortrekker Monument
Intangible heritage
-South African textbooks IN-Tangible heritage
104 Scientific-Technological
Heritage -N/A N/A
Ethnological Heritage -English settlers
-Native Americans or
Amerindians IN-Tangible heritage
Symbolic-identity heritage is prominent as the benchmark of heritage that is prioritised in this case study. This form of heritage is depicted through the portrayal of symbolic individuals as well as of important days that have been celebrated and commemorated as public holidays. Such individuals and days are seen as a reflection of the identity of a group of people or of a particular nation at given times. As a result, the text notes that
“the celebration of events or people is a constructed activity that serves a specific purpose, usually the development of national identity” (Dugmore et al., 2005, p. 231).
Making history. Grade 10. Learners’ book exemplifies this by presenting the controversy surrounding the celebration of three public holidays, that is, Columbus Day in the USA, Van Riebeeck Day and Day of Reconciliation in South Africa. Columbus Day is termed a “creation of the twentieth century” (Dugmore et al., 2005, p. 232). This is because the day was proclaimed as a public event by Roosevelt and declared a federal public holiday by Johnson, both twentieth century presidents respectively who wanted to unite Americans after the Great Depression and during the Vietnam War. This controversy around Columbus Day implies that heritage in general but symbolic-identity heritage in particular is only meaningful to a particular people at a particular time based on a desire to portray and defend a given identity.
Similarly this controversy is also true of Van Riebeeck Day. From the portrayal of Van Riebeeck Day, it is clear that the day was not only instrumental in the consolidation of Afrikaner unity and the construction of Afrikaner identity, but also as a means to construct a general white identity. This is seen in the example given of the National Party that included English-speaking white South Africans in festivities commemorating 300 years of Van Riebeeck’s landing (Dugmore et al., 2005, p. 235). The later change of name to Founders’ Day and then to Settlers’ Day respectively was equally symbolic because it was an attempt to further attract English but also to attract the Coloured and Indian South Africans to identify with this holiday. Black South Africans were generally
105
excluded from the celebrations except in a “humiliating, supporting role” (Dugmore et al., 2005, p. 235), which is why the text states that the African National Congress and other black political parties held a number of anti-Van Riebeeck meetings and protests to challenge this anti-black holiday and heritage. Finally the day was abandoned altogether following the election of a democratic government in 1994. Through the example of this day, Making history. Grade 10. Learners’ book is exposing the controversial nature of heritage and how it can be utilised as a tool to promote nationalism, identity and unity, but also to create segregation.
The last example of representation of symbolic-identity heritage through public holidays is the Day of Reconciliation. The presentation here is a narration of the events that led to the Battle of Blood River. The anniversary of this battle was subsequently declared a public holiday and took different names. As highlighted in the description, the day was initially named Dingaan’s Day, not to celebrate the Zulu king but rather to commemorate his defeat (Dugmore et al., 2005, p. 237). Therefore by this time, the day was considered the heritage of the Boer trekkers. The later changes to Day of Covenant and Day of Vow were both intended to instil a stronger sense of Afrikaner identity and unity.
However, with the advent of democracy in 1994, the day was re named “Day of Reconciliation” which symbolically gives the day a more inclusive status than its predecessors.
Symbolically, the three examples used in this case study clearly reveal the power of public holidays and heritage in general in promoting ideology and cementing identity of one group while at the same time excluding another. The data showed how public holidays have for example been given different names over time to meet particular agendas. For example, the Van Riebeeck Day was also called ‘Founders’ Day’ and
‘Settlers’ Day’ while the Day of Reconciliation was at various stages called ‘Day of the Covenant’, ‘Day of the Vow’ and ‘Dingaan’s Day’, for different motivations.
In the holidays used in the case study, black South Africans were not involved and they
“had to endure a holiday that celebrated their defeat and colonisation” (Dugmore et al., 2005, p. 237). This means that from a racial perspective, the choice of these three examples could be interpreted as an attempt to expose the dominant heritage of whites in the past. Columbus Day celebrated the subjugation and dissolution of the culture and
106
heritage of the Native Americans or Amerindians, by Christopher Columbus during his voyage of ‘discovery’. Similarly, the Van Riebeeck Day celebrations were augmented to include all white South Africans so that Van Riebeeck could become a symbol of white rule in South Africa. It is evident therefore that in the examples cited in this case study, that whites have always been in control of public holidays and other races have been
‘under dogs’. Since no other examples are given to show the contrary, it can be assumed that this is the message the Making history. Grade 10. Learners’ book is sending out to its readership through this case study.
As seen in Table 4.6, symbolic-identity heritage dominates the data to the extent that the other heritage benchmarks, though mentioned in a few instances, only serve to illustrate a point of symbolic heritage. This is the case with the lexical inclusion of
“English Settlers” and “Native Americans or Amerindians” in the data. These are both elements of ethnological heritage but their use in the context of this case study is symbolic because it is only intended to illustrate the role of public holidays as a heritage resource, and not to actually uncover the ethnologies of these groups of people as heritage. However, it is important to note that this particular case study entertains some elements of natural heritage albeit very limited. As espoused in Table 4.6, the benchmark of natural heritage is represented in the data through the presence of Table Mountain and the Ncome River. Yet as explained above, the fact that natural heritage and other heritage benchmarks are seldom espoused in the text implies that the focus of this textbook is on symbolic-identity heritage and not natural heritage.
The inference from this case study with reference to gender issues is that there is little or no explicit female representation in the text. All three public holidays used as examples in the text have strong masculine connotations. Both Columbus Day and Van Riebeeck Day are the result of the activities of male figures. The circumstances leading up to the commemoration of the Day of Reconciliation, although not directly influenced by the activities of male figures are to a large extent masculine. This includes as can be seen on Table 4.6, such names as Dingane, Piet Retief, Andries Pretorius, and Mpande. All these figures played decisive roles in the events that came to be commemorated as ‘Day of Reconciliation’, notably the Battle of Blood River. However, this male representation could also be seen as a reflection of the highly patriarchal
107
nature of society at the time. Nevertheless, considering that this book is written for a 21st century market that is very gender sensitive, a total non-representation of women in any history textbook is a serious challenge.
Conclusively, in this case study the heritage that is depicted is symbolic-identity heritage. Other benchmarks of how heritage is portrayed is seen in Table 4.6, but the context in which these are used suggest that they are meant as support for symbolic heritage rather than to espouse them as heritage in their own right. Moreover, the choices of examples for this case study suggest a white heritage representation from a racial point of view, namely Van Riebeeck Day and Columbus Day that excluded other races. Also the Day of Reconciliation was initially meant to celebrate the defeat of the Zulu at the Battle of Blood River. The lexical choices used in explaining these holidays have also proven this representation in the text. Furthermore, the entire case study is made up of male characters, which suggests that masculinity is very vital in explaining and understanding heritage in this book. Even though I considered this to be a reflection of a patriarchal society of the time, the democratic values of our present day society, reflected by the South African constitution which informs the NCS-History, mean that such heritage representations are a continuation of a patriarchical hegemony.