CHAPTER 4. MULTIPLE EXPLANATIONS OF TRANSFORMATION
4.2 Towards segregated museums
institutionalised and continued to exist until the late 1980s, after which it was contested and gained new life in the African Renaissance. A general traditionalism unfolded at this time and Lester et al (2000: 165-167) and Maylam (2001: 210) observe a growing Afrikaner nationalism that rejected the state´s White nationalist movement. A Report on the Museums and Art Galleries of British Africa describes how the NP came into existence as an embodiment of the memory and sentiment of Afrikaners who had created a great division among the political parties of the time. This affected museums because there was a rejection of anglophile thought patterns, language and institutions (Miers & Markham 1932: 42-43).
Afrikaners during the 1930s and Africans during Transformation both reject a dominant group´s thought patterns, language and institutions and create a cultural space of their own.
classified these museums as museums for natural history or cultural history. The Natal Museum was classified as a natural history museum while the Msunduzi Museum (VM) became a cultural history museum (Du Toit 1949: 13).
In 1949 the national museums were transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Education, Arts and Science. This was perceived by the Natal Museum to have brought a slow but steady improvement, mainly because there had been a desperate need for funding (NMAR 1969/1970). Funding has been an important factor during Transformation.
The lack of funding during apartheid made museums look static whereas recent funding possibilities have become part of the democratisation of museums and a catalyst for the materialisation of Transformation. The Du Toit Report (1949: 53, 160-178) presented suggestions to make museums fulfil their educational and research tasks by improving displays and collections. It also investigated whether the Board of Trustees was necessary and clearly defined the power of the board. The Msunduzi Museum (VM), it was suggested, should be administered by the Natal Museum. Oberholzer (1993: 11), Pauw (1994: Annexure A) note that only a few recommendations of the Du Toit Report were accepted and implemented by the government.
Webb (1994: 40), Tietz (1994: 56-59) and Dominy (2004: 136) argue that museums celebrated the triumphs of Whites, especially Afrikaners, and praised segregation and tribal Africa. Comparing Webb, Tietz and Dominy´s statements with the Du Toit Report makes it clear that the Msunduzi Museum (VM) served a very small role in the cultural propaganda of apartheid. Yet the Du Toit Report (1949: 192-194, 207) highlights the objectives of collections, displays and research connected to White nationalism. The report stressed a need to show origin in Europe and in the classical Mediterranean culture together with warfare, navigation and Christianity and the achievements of Whites and their relationship to the indigenous population. The report wrote that ‘Museums that reflect development in a country of many races where all have contributed their quota must surely make for a mutual appreciation and tolerance’ and that museums ‘make for social stability and social cohesion in a age when are sorely in need of both [sic]’ (Du Toit 1949: 195, 196).
White nationalism spatially located White heritage in a European context but in South Africa.
In this process they juxtaposed the indigenous population. Whites redefined themselves in preparation for self-governance by retaining the past and shaping an independent heritage
production. At this time there was a need to identify and specialise what was self and other – a process that would intensify during the 1950s and 1960s. The process has many similarities to Transformation, since both eras tried to locate origins, define new heritage expressions, and convey them in museums. Crucial too, was the construction of a heritage production different from an anglophile and African heritage, but located in eurocentric traditional values spatialising the white settlers’ achievements.
The Freedom Charter, a protest against apartheid, argued for multi-ethnic relationships and was banned by the apartheid government. The Freedom Charter touches on cultural production and how it should ideally be perceived. It states that all people should have equal rights to use their own language and develop their own culture. Culture, the Freedom Charter states, should be open to all and the government should encourage, develop and enhance cultural expressions (Nuttall, Wright, Hoffman, Sishi & Khandlela 1998: 43). Despite the appeal from subversive groups, the apartheid government strengthened cultural laws with the State-aided Institutions Amendment Act 46 of 1957 which reads:
A board may, subject to the approval of the minister, determine during what hours and under what conditions and restrictions the public or any group of persons or persons belonging to a particular race or class may visit an institution or portion thereof and what admission charges shall be payable.
This statute replaced regulation 2 of part IX of the State-aided Institution Act 23 of 1931 (letter from the Department of Education, Arts and Science 1957-07-26). Africans, Coloureds and Indians were not excluded from museums, but there were restrictions placed on them.
This law is a clear break with developments in the 1930s, because during the days of the Union, according to Miers and Markham (1932: 30-31) (with two exceptions allowing Africans entrance only on Thursdays if they wore shoes or boots), all museums were open to Africans. Africans seldom took the opportunity to visit museums, however, although museums in East London advertised on posters using African languages to attract visitors.
Museums were not completely racially segregated, but Webb (1994: 20) writes that in 1960 there was an attempt to restrict visits by blacks to one day per week – all other days were open for Whites only. I have not found any archival material supporting Webb´s statement. Nor have I found that the Natal Museum acted on the 1957 amendment mentioned above. In the Msunduzi Museum (VM), however, I found several letters from African and Indian schools applying for permission to visit the museum. These had been stamped and approved by the
government. Although Africans, Coloureds and Indians were never excluded from the museums, the restrictions imposed on them are close to what Van der Vyver (2003: 65) defines as ‘cultural genocide’ which applies when access to cultural institutions is controlled.
The 1957 amendment act was the control of heritage and people. Since black people had to apply to visit museums, it is possible to interpret the act as control over mobility and reinforcement of power which weakens the group controlled. Massey (1994: 1, 2005: 183, 150) and Dovey (2005: 285) argue that social division makes hierarchies between races evident and thus becomes vital for the understanding of Transformation.
As South Africa experienced economic growth, a rich Afrikaner middle-class and a growing black working-class formed in the cities. The 1960s were marked by protests and strikes in the major cities; the government declared a state of emergency and banned the African National Congress (ANC) and the pan-African Congress (PAC). The ANC answered by establishing its armed wing Umkhonto weSizwe. The generally unpopular ‘homelands’ were given self-governance and this was upheld by African chiefs and the government (Nuttall et al 1998: 72-87). During the conflict the government focused more intensively on heritage production and the professionalisation of museums. This can be related to economic growth and a need for stability in society manifested in cultural programmes of different kinds.
During this time the Booysen Committee was appointed by the Minister of Education in 1960 to report on the needs of state-aided institutions22 (Oberholzer 1994:14, Pauw 1994: Annexure A). The Booysen Committee dealt with the financial responsibility of state-aided institutions, but most of its recommendations on this issue were not approved. The suggestion that was approved and that concerns the Natal Museum was the appointing of an archaeologist in the museums (Oberholzer 1994: 15). The position was filled in the 1970s and was one of the major changes in the Natal Museum that led up to Transformation and the democratisation of the museum at a later date.
The De Villiers Report (1968)23 was an investigation of the national museums by the government. The report came to the conclusion that state-aided institutions should be helped to develop as scientific and cultural centres within the framework of a national development
22 The committee emphasised that there was a need for one body with status instead of the numerous separate boards that would eliminate the periodical investigations by commissions or committees.
23 Officially known as Die Verslag van die komitee van ondersoek na die behoeftes van staatsondersteunde inrigtings, here referred to as the De Villiers Report.
programme. It was acknowledged that the museums in the past had not received enough support for their research activities and that more positions for researchers should be granted.
The report made a call to professionalise museum research, displays and the classification of collections to make them up to date (De Villiers 1968: 27-34). The report encouraged the Natal Museum to establish a historical department and displays and acknowledged the importance of the Msunduzi Museum (VM) and its need for additional accommodation (De Villiers 1968: 54-55, 127-132). This report shows differences from the Du Toit Report which suggested that the museum be incorporated in the Natal Museum. During this time Afrikaner heritage production evidently became important to the government.
Tietz (1994: 62) holds that since 1961 the museum movement in South Africa had been characterised by an increase of new museums and the expansion of existing museums. This must be understood as an increasing cultural resistance to a turbulent political climate and as the manifestation of White heritage and intellectual deeds. Gore (2004: 45) holds that as an integral part of Afrikaner nationalism and the rejection of anglophile heritage, about 41 new museums were founded.24 In rejecting Afrikaner nationalism, museums centred on memorabilia of the early British settlers and showed love and strong ties for Great Britain (Gore 2004: 45). The De Villiers Report tried to construct White heritage institutions in the new Republic affected by a conflicting socio-political environment.25
The Cultural Institution Act 29 of 1969 and the National Monuments Council Act 28 of 196926 marked important changes in the museum sector. The passing of these acts was a result of the South African Republic Constitution of 1962, in which the republic created a new wave of nationalism, visible in museum displays and collections. These acts were a way of consolidating this. The Cultural Institution Act 29 of 1969 enacted that the committee of a state-aided institution should become a statutory body. It became a forum through which museum directors could advise and be advised directly vis-á-vis the minister. This improved the director’s position in the museum and meant that the Board of Trustees did not function as
24 Most of them local museums founded by an individual or an organisation.
25 Among the report’s recommendations was that a comprehensive subsidy formula be established to enable the institutions to fulfil their functions. This meant that the institutions could start long-term financial planning (Pauw 1994: Annexure, Oberholzer 1994:15-16, De Villiers 1968). The report also commented on the regulations in the State-aided Institution Amendment Act 46 of 1957 and called for an investigation of the regulations in relation to the public (De Villiers 1968).
26 The council nominated national heritage and conserved archaeological objects.
a middleman between the museum and the government and that the director could act more freely.
The Niemand Report27 (1975) was established because of financial factors and the promulgation of the Cape Provincial Ordinance 31 of 1968 and the Natal Museum Ordinance 26 of 1973. The latter arose from the need to establish a provincial museum service from which the museums could borrow items for their displays (Niemand et al 1975: 4, Pauw 1994:
Annexure A). The Niemand Report was not well received by the museum sector when it was tabled in parliament in 1976 (Pauw 1994: Annexure A). The reason for this was that the report brought forward the lack of professionalism in museums and the lack of curatorial practice, professional cultural historians and up-to-date displays. Oberholzer (1994: 20-24) has shown that the main complaint of the Natal Museum was that there was no historian to research the history of the Battlefields. This must have been a hard blow for museums struggling under severe financial restraints. The criticism levelled shows similarities to Transformation and highlights that museums did not meet government satisfaction. Oberholzer (1994: 20) shows that museums criticised the Niemand Report for not understanding the premises under which museums worked.
The Natal Museum reacted to the Niemand Report and in a memorandum from the director to the Board of Trustees the former suggested that the museum should establish a new post of cultural historian in order to create a research climate and an academic collection (Stuckenberg 1981). The Niemand Report (1975) suggested cultural and natural history museums should be separated, but the director of the Natal Museum suggested that there were many valuable aspects linking these together (Stuckenberg 1981). The Niemand Report made an unsuccessful attempt to deconstruct previous ways of merging nature and culture in one place. During Transformation this way of presenting science was highly criticised and Dominy (1992) states that museums could in the worst cases be regarded as equating African heritage with animals.
The Niemand Report debated whether the Msunduzi Museum (VM) should continue as a museum at all since display space was lacking and there was no curator to care for the
27 Officially known as The Report of the commission of inquiry into the co-ordination of museums on a national level, here referred to as the Niemand Report.
collection. The report could be the reason why Ivor Pols28 was hired as director. The report also discusses whether the Msunduzi Museum (VM) could become a national cultural history and open-air museum (Oberholzer 1994: 31). This was inspired by the eco-museum movement which according to Simpson (1996: 71-72), extended museum activities beyond the museum building. This suggestion became central to the expansion of the Msunduzi Museum (VM) in the 1980s when exploring Afrikaner heritage led to a greater professionalisation of the museum. The Msunduzi Museum (VM) was challenged in the Niemand Report to fill a need in society just as it would be post-1994.
Both the 1972 ICOM meeting in Chile and the 1974 ICOM definition of museums focused on making the museums play a part in society (Simpson 1996: 71-73). The Niemand Report seems to have considered these aspects and challenged South African museums to become more relevant, but not in as racially inclusive a way as Transformation would later demand. In South Africa the eco-museums were used as a part of developing a White heritage and exploring a self especially in regard to Afrikaner heritage.29 Simpson (1996: 73) holds that the eco-museums give groups a possibility to resume control over representation and cultural activities. In South Africa eco-museums were reused post-1994 as a way to democratise heritage expression but also to emphasise cultural uniqueness, which was entrenched in the social consciousness, especially in the case of the Msunduzi Museum (VM). The eco-museum institutionalised socio-political structures, and the Niemand Report (1975:11) entrenched heritage in the service of cultural propaganda by stating that structures were a valuable asset for the state.
The Msunduzi Museum (VM) started negotiations with the government to become a cultural history museum (NVM 1982-09-08). Two years later the director travelled to various parts of Europe and the USA to study different open-air museums and get inspiration on how to develop the museum into an open-air museum (NVM 1986-06-19). This development stagnated during early Transformation but was later reinvented in an African context to enable control over heritage. Thus Transformation built on aspects from the late apartheid era though the agents and ideologies were different.
28 Director between 1979-2002.
29 Further explored in Chapter 5.
In the end only three of the Niemand Report´s 34 recommendations were approved or implemented (Pauw 1994: Annexure, Oberholzer 1994: 27-30).30 No White Papers were published on this report because of what Oberholzer (1994: 27) describes as ill-considered recommendations. He goes on to state that the reception of the report by the Department of National Education was unknown because the department’s records were confidential.
The museum has been emphasised as static and enforcing colonial and apartheid ideals. I have shown that museums were never static and underwent several changes. There was not one version of White heritage and it was a problem to define it. Museums were only partial repositories of White nationalistic ideologies because of the fact that museums and the government had problems defining White heritage. It was not until the late 1970s and 1980s that such ideals were properly consolidated in the museums at a time when apartheid was drawing to its end.