DATA ANALYSIS: THE NATURE OF HERITAGE IN SELECTED GRADE 10 HISTORY TEXTBOOKS
4.1 Introduction
4.2.6 Interpretation of heritage in case study 2
Table 4.3 that follows provides the interpretation of the data on the second case study of heritage in this textbook as described in the preceding section.
Table 4.3 Interpretation of heritage in case study 2 – In search of history. Grade 10.
Learner’s book
Indicators Signifiers/lexicons Tangible, Intangible or
IN-Tangible heritage
Natural heritage -N/A N/A
Cultural
heritage Symbolic- identity heritage
-Shaka
-Saartjie Baartman -Columbus
-Queen Isabella -Asa’na Akoh -Sibongile Pefile -the Elephant Man
IN-Tangible heritage
-Khoisan culture -African identity
-La Musee de l’Homme -Natural History Museum
-South African Heritage Resource Agency
-San cultural centre
Intangible heritage
-exhibitions -performances -dance
-ceremonies
-freak show spectacles -language
-culture -ancestors
-indigenous knowledge -specialised local knowledge -body parts
-skulls
-sexual organs -skeletons -human heads -brain
-genitals -bones -mass graves
IN-Tangible heritage
84 -plants
-wildlife -statues Scientific-
Technological
heritage -N/A N/A
Ethnological heritage
-Arawak people -Bosjesmans -African women -African people -Khoisan people
-Bushmen and Hottentot -Europe
-America -England -Spain
-The New World -South Africa -Southern Africa -France
-Eastern Cape -Namibia -Cameroon -Cape Town -the colonies
IN-Tangible heritage
IN-Tangible heritage
The benchmark of natural heritage does not feature in this case study. The silence on natural heritage is evidence that heritage in the view of the producers of In search of history. Grade 10. Learner’s book is a cultural phenomenon, implying that cultural heritage is the form of heritage that is recognised and promoted in this textbook.
The two benchmarks of cultural heritage represented in this case study are the symbolic-identity and the ethnological heritage sub categories. Symbolic-identity heritage is represented through the depiction of names of individuals such as Saartjie Baartman, Shaka, Queen Isabella, Columbus and the Elephant Man. Baartman, for example, is represented as a symbol of Khoisan and African identity, but also a symbol of the vulnerability of African woman in the early nineteenth century. Symbolic-identity heritage is also represented in terms of names of heritage preservation sites such as la Musee de l’Homme in Paris, the Natural History Museum of Cape Town, the South African Heritage Resource Centre and the San Cultural Centre. These sites are also symbolic for their roles in the dissemination of heritage. This benchmark of heritage is
85
also represented through symbolic heritage activities such as dance, ceremonies, freak show spectacles, indigenous knowledge, and performances. Finally, since the focus of this heritage case study is on the display of humans, it is not surprising that symbolic heritage is also represented through human body parts. The body parts mentioned include skulls, sexual organs, skeletons, human heads, brains, genitals and bones. The text states that thousands of such body parts remain in the collection of European museums to this day (Bottaro et al., 2005, p. 226).
With regards to ethnological heritage representation, reference is mostly made to the Khoisan and African origins of Saartjie Baartman who is the main protagonist in this section on the display of humans. Apart from Baartman, the Khoisan ethnic group is further represented through the diorama as described in (Bottaro et al., 2005, p. 13).
The controversy generated by the diorama forced authorities to dismantle it out of respect for the Khoisan. Apart from Saartjie Baartman and the diorama, ethnological heritage is also represented through the examples of the Arawak people, the Bosjesmans and the Bushmen and Hottentot. Other ethnological communities such as England, Spain, America, France and Namibia are also lexicalised in the text even though this latter group is used more in a supporting role to explain their inclusion in the activities surrounding Sarah Baartman and the diorama, rather than to portray them as heritage icons in their own right.
Moreover, the two benchmarks of symbolic-identity and ethnological heritage explained above were also analysed in terms of their representations of other themes or discourses relevant to post-conflict societies such as: gender, race and class as well as issues of geography. With regards to gender, there is evidence of male and female representation in the data. Unlike the previous two sections, this case study is less biased in terms of gender. Evidence of this is the fact that the main protagonist chosen to illustrate humans on display is a female. However, it can be argued that the use of a female in this example is intended to express the powerlessness of this gender. But such a claim can also be contested by the fact that the text also makes reference to a female personality in the person of Queen Isabella. In this example a woman is not used in a secondary role as her name is not withheld as with the example in Zimbabwe where reference is only made of the queen as “Queen of Sheba” and not by name.
86
Therefore this case study adopts a more equalitarian approach in the representation of heritage from a gender perspective.
Basically, two racial groups are represented in the text. There is the black group that is shown as victims of humans on display while the whites are portrayed as the perpetrators. This black group is represented mainly by the Khoisan people of Southern Africa. The story of Saartjie Baartman is an example. She was a Khoisan woman who was “stripped of her native, her Khoisan, her African identity and paraded in Europe as a savage monstrosity” (Bottaro et al., 2005, p. 227). Again the Khoisan is portrayed as victims of the display of humans in the scenario of the diorama. The display attracted much controversy and was discontinued in 2001 after much public debate (Bottaro et al., 2005, p. 228). Moreover, the Khoisan people are also mentioned in the context of indigenous knowledge as heritage. Similarly, it is stated that the Khoisan community won a court case against a pharmaceutical company in Namibia after claiming the intellectual property rights of a medicinal plant as their heritage (Bottaro et al., 2005, p.
231). The representation of white people seems to be intended to show their responsibility in the act of displaying humans. For example the text notes that
“Europeans have exhibited people they saw as ‘other’ ever since their first contact with indigenous populations of the New World and Africa” (Bottaro et al., 2005, p. 225).
American and Europeans are portrayed as guilty of exhibiting people in the 1800s.
Columbus is also cited as having brought back with him on his return to Spain some Arawak people to display to the court of Queen Isabella. Therefore humans on display are represented in this textbook from a perspective that gives responsibility to Europeans and Americans who indulged in this as part of their “scientific” heritage.
Above all, the lexical representation of different racial groups in the text could also be seen as a historiographical turn in which history is seen and written not only from a white man’s perspective but efforts are made to include the experiences of people of colour in the history curriculum.
This case study also shows that heritage exists at different levels as evident in the choice of pronouns used in the text. These pronouns in some instances refer to heritage as “our heritage” and at other times as “their heritage”, thereby contradicting the point on bias discussed in the previous chapter. For example, the text states that “the value of
87
indigenous knowledge is starting to be recognised as part of our South African heritage”
(Bottaro et al., 2005, p. 231). In this example indigenous knowledge is a shared heritage that includes everybody in South Africa. But then even within South Africa, people claim different heritages that are not shared by the whole society. This is so with those who have specialised local knowledge such as traditional healers. The text clearly states that such people need laws to protect their intellectual property rights because “this is part of their heritage” (Bottaro et al., 2005, p. 231).
From a different perspective, these levels of heritage could also be understood in the context of the different geographical representations of heritage in the text. Mention of places such as America, South Africa, France, Eastern Cape, Cameroon, Cape Town, England, Spain, and Africa, also implies the heritage of these individual places or their people as linked to humans on display as in the story of Baartman. As a result, different places or people have different heritages but when interest in a particular heritage is common to places and people across national borders, it gives rise to world heritage as is the case with the examples of the Taj Mahal and the Elmina Fortress cited in the conceptualisation.