“Cultural institutions both reflect and create images of the past and are sometimes at the center of conflicts over how the past should be represented and who controls the narrative and images associated with it.” [1]
We are living in a time of tremendous change. Part of that change is symbolic and reflects an often contested, even disruptive, dialogue about monuments of the past. We have all seen images this year of statues coming down around the world, with protestors and counter-protesters emotionally invested in the outcome.
A discussion of the role of monuments in conflict is timely given the recent surge of global protests against oppression. In this post, I will first give examples of recent events featuring the importance of monuments in racial and ethnic conflict, and then describe as a case study the history and lessons learned from South Africa’s post-Apartheid struggle with monuments.
In the United States, the continued existence of historical monuments and statues associated with slavery and the Confederacy have long been the subject of debate. Since the killing of George Floyd on 25 May 2020, anti-racism protests spread across the US and across the world. As part of some protests, statues associated with symbols of racial injustice have been torn down. In Washington, D.C., the capital of the US, protestors tore down and burned a statue of Albert Pike, a Confederate general. In the United Kingdom, protestors knocked down a statue of Edward Colston, who was a board member of the largest slave-trading firm in British history. And in the French territory of Martinique, anti-racism activists destroyed a statue of Josephine de Beauharnais, Napoleon’s empress and a symbol of the island’s colonial history.
CULTURAL SYMBOLS CARRY DEEP PSYCHOLOGICAL AND NATIONAL MEANING
Cultural institutions such as monuments, statutes, holidays, and historical sites are culturally-charged symbols that evoke strong emotions in people. These are symbols of cultural expression, politics, and shared remembrance. But they do more than highlight the past—they are also a living representation of a regime. When you combine the highly-charged nature of these types of institutions and symbols with social movements, wars, and conflict, we get a glimpse into how the things we put up to remind ourselves about the past intersect with deep issues of psychology, sociology, nationhood, and spirituality.
ATTACKS AGAINST STATUES ARE ATTACKS AGAINST WHAT THEY REPRESENT
Erin L. Thompson, an art historian specialising in cultural icons, notes that the importance of cultural statues is “not the statues themselves but the point of view that they represent”. She continues: “These protesters are attacking symbols of a hateful past as part of fighting for a peaceful future.” Thus, when the statue is destroyed, their destruction symbolises hope for the future.
In his book Cultural Contestation in Ethnic Conflict, Marc Ross, author and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Bryn Mawr College, discusses the importance of these symbols in the context of ethnic conflict, with a focus on what happened to political and cultural symbols after the end of Apartheid in South Africa. I personally resonate with Ross’s analysis because of my own travel experiences.
I travelled extensively as a journalist and as a graduate student, and one thing I quickly noticed was that as the number of statues, memorials, and photographs of the president of a country increased, the more likely it was that the country was under an oppressive regime. Thailand is a perfect example – there are so many pictures of the king on the street that you start to feel like you know him personally. Thailand has one the most oppressive and violent regimes in Asia.
Due to the fundamental importance of monuments and historical sites in society, they are often attacked by the opposition in times of conflict. I study the conflict in Mali, and when the jihadist rebel groups damaged cultural and religious historical sites in Timbuktu, it was a major blow to Malian national pride. Because Timbuktu is one of the most significant and historical cities in the world, even the international community became involved in efforts to rebuild the damaged sites. In this case, the destruction of these monuments was used to perpetuate a message against the government and prevailing social order.
A SOUTH AFRICAN CASE STUDY IN WRESTLING WITH SYMBOLS OF THE PAST
Ross discusses the importance of monuments in South Africa. He argues that after Apartheid ended, the new government, led by the African National Congress (ANC), created several commissions and groups, including the South African Heritage Resource Agency (SAHRA), to explore if and how to transform historical and cultural monuments, memorials, and museums. The consensus was that symbols of apartheid and its resistance years should be archived and remembered in some form, and the existing symbolic places or objects would not be destroyed.
The ANC’s decision not to destroy monuments and symbols that existed prior to Apartheid has led to a situation where monuments and statues honouring the former white rulers and the apartheid system have not been destroyed – at most, some of the monuments have been moved from their original location.
Ross has an interesting theory about how post-conflict societies transform monuments and other symbolic spaces. One thing he discusses is the concept of “addition,” meaning a government’s introduction of new symbolic spaces. In South Africa, this includes Moses Mabhida Stadium and sites honouring former President Nelson Mandela (see photos below), celebrating two heroes of the anti-Apartheid movement. I experienced one of the most emotional examples of addition when I visited Robben Island, a remote island that used to house anti-Apartheid prisoners such as Nelson Mandela and is now a museum. Tourists can take a ferry to the island, where former prisoners give tours highlighting the discrimination of the Apartheid system that led marginalised groups, including Black and Indian people, to be held there. The tour guides emphasise the amazing strength and resilience of the Robben Island prisoners who went on to change the course of South Africa’s history for the better.
Photos display the author visiting Nelson Mandela’s prison cell at Robben Island. 2018.
“Appropriation” is when a government rebrands symbolic places and holidays. In South Africa, the Parliament in Cape Town and the Union Buildings in Pretoria, which were symbols of the Apartheid era, are now used by the government and post-Apartheid leaders for their business, as Ross also discusses.
Lastly, “modification” is when the government changes the meaning of a symbol or space. Sometimes modification can be tied to something practical. When a government desegregates its schools, for example, it is not only practically combining groups that were kept apart, but it is also changing and altering the symbols of education themselves. Before 1994, the University of KwaZula-Natal was for white people only, but in 2018, my class of 350 students was composed of predominantly Black and Asian students, with only two white students.
In fact, when it comes to essential human rights like education and housing, resistance to integration or positive changes is present precisely because of the symbolism involved. Housing in South Africa remains deeply segregated (as in the United States and in other apartheid or quasi-apartheid societies). Despite South Africa’s economic position as part of the emerging economies of the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), there has been an increase in the number of slums, from 300 before 1994 to 2,700 now. While driving through town, you can see villages and “bidonvilles” (slums) in the middle of some of the most glamorous cities in South Africa. If you ask how the cities ended up like this, the answer you will receive is that it is because of Apartheid. Under Apartheid policy, Black residents were placed far away from the cities where there was no infrastructure, sanitation, or proper buildings. Indian people were used as buffer zones, while white and coloured people (a term used in South Africa to describe people of mixed race) occupied proper housing in the city centers. Despite an effort to change this through human settlement projects, integrating the population through housing remains one of the biggest challenges the South African government is facing today.
The history of post-Apartheid South Africa provides additional perspective on potential methods to deal with a painful past and move towards a future of reconciliation. The analysis above can be applied to what we are experiencing in the world today. The decisions to leave symbols of the past intact; to add, appropriate, or modify them; or to tear them down is highly relevant in today’s context of racial protests, as we consider how to rectify symbols of oppression.
This analysis, in light of current events, leads to several questions:
When is it appropriate to leave monuments associated with repression, as a means to remember—not to repeat—the past, versus tearing them down in rejection of a history of oppression?
What are some examples of additions, appropriation, and modification of monuments associated with oppression in the United States and Europe?
Can the strategies used in South Africa be used in the United States and Europe to address racial injustice?
***
[1] Ross, M. H. (2007). Cultural contestation in ethnic conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dr. Jean-Marc Akakpo is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Kennesaw State University (KSU). His research interests include global governance, politics, and political economy in Anglophone and Francophone Africa and the European Union, with specialisations in international conflict management and climate change.