CHAPTER 5. CONTESTED PLACE AND CONTESTED MUSEUMS
5.4 Name
5.4.2 Msunduzi Museum Incorporating the Voortrekker Complex
The first record dealing with a name change appeared in 1996; the Board of Trustees decided that the name ‘Voortrekker Museum’ was no longer appropriate. Director Pols pointed out that it was up to parliament not the museum to change the name (MEVM 1996-07-05). It is obvious from the following discussion that he wanted to retain the name. Roger Jardine, director-general of DACST, met with the museum in 1997, suggesting that the name Voortrekker Museum be retained for the Voortrekker complex, and that a new umbrella name be established for the museum as a whole (MEVM 1997-06-14). The museum was at this time under major reconstruction; it was not certain whether the Natal and Msunduzi Museums would form a flagship institution or become provincial museums. Thus the matter was put on hold pending future discussion.
In 1999 the issue arose again. Director Pols described the name change as a ‘very sensitive matter’ since the museum was ‘internationally known’ (letter from Pols 1999-02-02). I hold that this was an aspect of connecting to a global White identity as a way of distinguishing the museum from members of the population that did not have roots in Europe. It also reconnected with relationships between South Africa and Europe. Machaba (2005: 182) writes that change evokes feelings of insecurity and loss of established identities. Pols argued that because of the ‘very important and historical Voortrekker collection’, the word
‘Voortrekker’ should be included in the new name. To reflect the overall changes of the museum, the Board of Trustees decided that the name should be changed to Voortrekker- Msunduzi Museum, reflecting the status of the museum (letter from Pols 1999-02-02), but the name was never changed.
In 2003 the renaming issue reappeared and the Board of Trustees agreed that the name
‘Voortrekker Museum’ was misleading, since the museum was dealing with multicultural history and not only with Voortrekker history (MIVM 2003-10-03). At the same time the museum announced in the media that they wished the public to participate in the decision of the name change (Sabelo 2006-04-21). Public participation can be regarded as part of the people-driven process that the RDP stipulated, but was also a way of marketing the museum as a democratic place. In The Witness (2003-07-31) the museum suggested that the new name should preferably reflect a local geographic feature, could not be a name of a person or a population or interest group, and had to promote the spirit of reconciliation. Comparing this to the letter from Pols (1999-02-02), it is clear that the museum had already decided what the name should be. The process of announcing it to the media could be a way of drawing attention to the museum as a transforming institution of formally inviting people to be part of it. This reflects the RDP ideology.
My informant Thabo (2006-03-17) explained that the river Msunduzi that the museum was named after existed long before the conflict and that it would prompt the spirit of reconciliation. The name therefore changed from that formally associated with a group to that of a local place. Both the Voortrekker Museum and the Msunduzi Museum names create different political spaces. The Voortrekker name had created an Afrikaner place in a dominant anglophile political structure and during apartheid times a place of belonging and exclusion in line with apartheid socio-political structures. The name Msunduzi Museum created a democratic place in a dominant African political structure. Connecting the new name to a
‘neutral’ geographical feature was a way of trying to reclassify the museum and break with the former association of the place.
Public response to the renaming was subdued and emanated mostly from Whites,98 but this reflected the importance the museum had for Whites and the role it did not play for other groups. It also reflects the lack of insight the public had into the nature of the museum activities. Most of the people that responded seemed to be unaware that the museum had for some time been a multicultural museum, believing that the museum was mainly a museum for Voortrekker historical items. The majority of letters, e.g., from Poulter (2003-07-31) suggest names referring to White settler culture. The name ‘The Voortrekker Museum’ was part of the identity of the museum which appears to be so strongly connected to Whites that it seemed impossible for the letter writers even to suggest names not connected to the identities of Whites.
Andries Botha, development organiser and member of the Taal en Kultuurvereniging told the media that: ‘It is not that we don’t want to reach out to other cultural groups ... why can’t the Voortrekker complex still be referred to as the Voortrekker Museum, as a subsection of the museum? Whether some people like it or not, Pietermaritzburg was founded by the Voortrekkers’ (The Witness 2003-07-31). A citizen of Pietermaritzburg, Jan Welter, went further in this criticism and suggested that the donations to the museum should be returned to the donors and the museum should be closed (The Witness 2003-07-31). The rejections could be seen as a response to the political climate that showed a rejection to the previous dominant group. Furthermore, the comment that the museum collection was no longer safe was an expression of that political situation. Johan Willemse, an Afrikaner, connected the museum emanating in the Church of Vow as the relationship between Afrikaners and almighty God constituted in the vow. He argued that the vow was rooted in the faith and culture of the Voortrekker Museum (letter from Willemse 2003-09-29). The sentiments related to the place and were strongly reflected in these letters and still have considerable meaning to many Afrikaners.
The reactions to the change showed that (some) Afrikaners in Pietermaritzburg, especially those who rooted their identity in the Voortrekker heritage, feared that the council would not
98 Reflected in the names of the writers and the language of the authors.
honour the Voortrekker complex and that its meaning would consequently be lost. This reflects an experience of a threatened identity in Transformation. The fear was rooted in the strong association of the museum with the Church of Vow, whose meaning embodied Afrikaner identity and, therefore, the museum´s identity. Although they did not visit the place, the meaning and the affiliation were reawakened in times of change and when the name was threatened.
Despite the reaction, the Voortrekker complex was never actually threatened as feared. The Voortrekker name was always proposed as a subsection of the name, but the reaction shows how deeply the name and the place were connected and rooted in Afrikaner identity. The name change became a materialisation of sentiments of Afrikaner heritage coming under threat in the new political context. The above view was shared by my informant Mpho (2006- 10-30), who said that he believed that the name should remain, in part because the museum was started by the Voortrekkers. There is a discrepancy between my informant´s statements as a non-Afrikaner and how Afrikaners regard non-Afrikaners’ interpretation of the name.
Willemse´s view might be a reflection of feelings of vulnerability in a new political dispensation. Afrikaner heritage was no longer dominant and unique, but was equal to all other heritages in a context in which those presently in power of heritage were the former other of the Afrikaners.
In the letters there is very little consideration of multicultural heritage. Heritage and cultures are expressed as distinctive and unique, which is reflected in suggestions of name. In the letter from Richter (2003-08-13) the pioneer history of the Afrikaner community is emphasised, and the writer indicates that this distinct identity should be preserved with other relevant heritages of South Africa’s richly diverse history. Her argument was deeply rooted in the cultural classification and discourse of segregation and difference that emphasised cultural diversity and distinctiveness.
Piet Strauss, national leader of Die Voortrekkers, wrote in a statement quoted in a letter from Opperman (2003-08-13) that he regretted that the Church of Vow and the Voortrekker Museum would change their name and thematic focus. He regarded the museum as a notable site of cultural heritage. He suggested that in the future this would be handled with sensitivity;
otherwise it could be tantamount to an open marginalisation of this heritage. He also said that the 2003 Board of Trustees of the museum largely consisted of non-Afrikaner members,
which created an impression of lack of sensitivity towards Afrikaner heritage. The objections reflected the strong cultural identity that Afrikaners had created for themselves, which gave rise to a platform from which Afrikaners could create arguments for the preservation of their heritage and from which it was possible for them to argue for a more multicultural climate that included White heritage expressions.
Gert Opperman99 took the strong reaction by the public into consideration when the debate was taken up in the meeting of the Board of Trustees of the museum. Assurance was therefore given to concerned communities that the Voortrekker complex would be safeguarded. This was also discussed at a Board of Trustees meeting on 24th July 2003 where ‘the sacred heritage of the Voortrekkers that forms a great part of the museum would need to be safeguarded and taken care of’ (council work session held at Ncome 2003-07-24). It was again clarified that it was not up to the museum itself to change the name, but the minister of DAC had to make such a decision (MIVM 2003-10-03).
A name signifies different things dependent on what it is desired to signify (Evans 1977: 203).
Renaming the museum was a way of removing the power of cultural symbolism located in the previous political dispensation. The museum symbolised Afrikaner belonging, and my informant Gert (2006-04-28) stated the importance of retaining the Voortrekker association, since there was a growing perception among many Afrikaners that their history was no longer important. The Board of Trustees discussed the issue of belonging and the question was raised, but not resolved, whether the people of Pietermaritzburg identified themselves with the museum (council work session held at Ncome 2003-07-24). When the name change was proposed people identified with the place, who would otherwise not have done, and the meaning and identity of the place was activated. Heritage is one of the things that produces security and a sense of stability for South Africans. In a changing social-political climate, people need to have a sense of stability to cling to. Since the Msunduzi Museum (VM) had functioned as a site of identification and stability, a name change was a sensitive process.
Identification and stability were needed because the normative means of classifying heritage was dissolving at times of change and the symbol of the museum was relocated. When realising their symbols are about to change, people reaffirm and associate with their identity more, because of the risk of losing it.
99 Member of the Board of Trustees of 2003 and director-general of the Voortrekker Monument.
In 2006 the Msunduzi Museum Incorporating the Voortrekker Complex was still officially known as the Voortrekker Museum, Pietermaritzburg. My informants believed that the name had negative connotations for many people and that it would estrange people or make them unwelcome when visiting the museum. A new name on the other hand would accommodate most people (Margareta 2006-10-11, Mpho 2006-10-30, Ntokoso 2006-04-28). My informant Marie (2006-02-11) felt that a name change would upset Afrikaner communities. The name was to be officially changed on 7th April 2006, but due to delays at DAC the official papers were not signed and the deputy minister of DAC, Ntombazana Botha, could not open the museum under its new name. This caused distress among the museum staff-members, who wanted the name changed to reflect Transformation. Plumwood (2005: 386) argues that names are connected to narratives, in this case a narrative about political power and Transformation. The political power vested in DAC failed to structurally organise a change although demanding it and the museum found itself in a complex ‘in-between space’. DAC retained the museum in a name reflecting a former political dispensation and could not perceive the museum as transformed; but the institution using the new name acted as if it were transformed.
In a speech at what was meant to be the name-change ceremony the mayor of Pietermaritzburg Zanele Hlatshwayo said: ‘You can’t say that you have transformed until you changed [sic] your name to reflect the change’ (Hlatshwayo 2006-04-07). The museum, according to her, did not reflect Transformation if this was not echoed in its name, notwithstanding the inability of the political powers to fulfil their obligations. I interpret the emphasis on name change as the decolonisation of the museum from a eurocentric-based knowledge institution and an instrument in the hands of a previous government into an African place, whose agenda has not yet materialised and which positions itself in opposition to the past. This was also reflected in what my informants Sabelo (2006-04-21), Ntokoso (2006-04-28) and Mpho (2006-10-30) told me.
Clayton S. Holliday objected strongly to the renaming in The Witness and drew on the history of Pietermaritzburg, the museum, Afrikaners and the honouring of the vow, an aspect that he believed did not change because of time. Holliday wrote:
I was appalled to hear in the news that the name of this historic building has been changed to Msunduzi Museum. This name has absolutely nothing to do with the Voortrekkers, the church or the wonderful historical collection housed in this unique museum. I am aware that the museum was transferred to the government as a national museum and later became a national monument. But changing name is an abuse of power and privilege, blatant racism and a deliberate distortion of traditions, history and trust. This needs to be resisted at every level.
Soon there will be no names associated with our past and the history of this country (Holliday 2007-11-26).
Holliday´s rejection is in keeping with the current general trend of renaming streets and buildings in South Africa. The renaming is targeted to promote redress and reconciliation.
Sithole (2007-05-26) argued that renaming is one thing that enraged and divided South Africans and is seen more as an administrative, political and technical device that is not meaningful. The names that have generally been chosen tend to be names that are associated with ‘the struggle’, and with recent or current political figures, and in many cases the renaming has not been culturally sensitive.
On 26th October 2007 the minister of DAC, Dr Pallo Jordan, was to change the Msunduzi Museum (VM) name officially. Athough staff-members had since 2006 referred to the museum as the Msunduzi Museum, the act of having an official renaming constituted a specific meaning and reflected the museum´s relationship with the current government.
Through the ritual of inviting government officials to change the name, the museum confirmed Transformation. This act also constitutes structural ownership over the institution where the government in a ritualisation physically manifests its power and claims belonging.
Although it had been a multicultural institution for some time, governmental officials emphasised that it was not that in the past. This played a role in the political rhetoric to highlight the name as a tangible proof of Transformation. The museum in the eyes of the government needed to prove that it was far removed from the colonial and apartheid past.
Due to unforeseen circumstances the minister could not participate in the event on 26th October 2007 and it was therefore postponed till 2nd November 2007, but that date also did not suit the minister and it was moved to 3rd November. But the minister was tied up in Cape Town on that date and never appeared at the ceremony. This caused dissatisfaction among my informants, and it can be questioned whether the minister´s absence and unavailability was proof of his lack of interest in a former Afrikaner institution. It seemed clear that my informants interpreted his behaviour as such and they made sarcastic jokes suggesting that the minister´s absence was proof that the name should not change after all.
The eventual renaming ceremony was done in a spirit of multiculturalism. Entertainment from Indian, Afrikaner and Zulu communities was provided. Peter Nel (2007-10-03) called the renaming a very historic moment in the history of the museum. Thokozani Dlamini,100 representing Zanele Hlatshwayo,101 read the minister´s speech (Hlatshwayo 2007-10-03). It reconnected the re-naming to the struggle, IKS, multiculturalism and participation since the name-change opened the museum to whoever wished to visit it. While reading the speech the museum activated a power-point presentation flashing the sentence ‘The name can change but the history will remain’ – a sentence that I interpret as an assurance that the Voortrekker Complex would not be neglected and neither would the history of any other ‘cultural groups’.
Despite this assurance, Dlamini managed to forget that the museum was now called the Msunduzi Museum Incorporating the Voortrekker Complex and called it Msunduzi Museum, which caused some discontent among some of the staff-members. They continued to debate amongst themselves whether the Voortrekker Complex is part of the name and will not simply fade into insignificance.