|
View the h-africa Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-africa's November 1998 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in h-africa's November 1998 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the h-africa home page.
<plimb@library.uwa.edu.au>
The "Heritage & History" thread has been very interesting. I
note, however, the paucity of comment by historians about one of
the central issues raised by Jane Carruthers in her "Heritage &
History" Africa Forum piece: namely, the crisis in the humanities.
In a recent number of the _South African Historical Journal_,
the retiring editor-in-chief, J. Du Bryn, commented on the
crisis confronting History Departments in most South African
universities. Have historians, he mused, retreated into a mere
study of the African past in order to escape confronting the
crisis of declining funding, lack of interest in History as a
subject, and the turn to 'heritage'?
Further north we have the spectacle of the recent demise of _The
Zimbabwean Review_ which, added to the long-dormant _Zimbabwean
History_, means there are effectively few outlets for serious
historical review in that country. Things are little better in
other states.
In my view there is a need not only for the innovative electronic
initiatives raised by Gretchen Walsh, but also for concerted efforts by
historians to raise the profile of History and make bureaucrats/politicians
more aware of the significance of historical studies.
It is ironical that all this is happening at the time of the
release of the Truth and Reconciliation Report, an investigation
into the past but with an aim to forgive [if not forget] past
crimes in the name of reconciliation. What will come next? Will
rampant nationalisms succeed, as they have elsewhere, in
replacing historical science with pre-fabricated iconography and
hagiography justified by the need for nation-building?
Will those monumental heritage projects already completed or
underway [such as the Robben Island Museum] adequately overwrite
the decades of apartheid historiography and the centuries of
settler cultural hegemony? Progressive South African
historiography achieved a great deal in the 1970s and the 1980s,
but the physical elimination of positions in History augurs
poorly for future interpretations of what will be tommorrow's
history.
The arguments will come back that South Africa can no longer
'afford' History; that History in any case was a preserve of
whites; that clean drinking water is more important. Nobody can
argue wuth that. But can corruption, super-profits, and
exploitation also really be 'afforded'? Are not future job-
prospects of new black graduates closed off? [as is happening at
Rhodes East London where three-quarters of black academic staff
in the humanities are being given the boot, or at UWC where
about 48 positions are to go]. And what of the closing-off of
future career structures for new students?
The other argument will come back that the market is not
interested in history. Isn't this the old chicken-egg story,
like the argument that the media only provides 'cops and
robbers' shows as this is what the market demands? What happens
when the market is saturated with heritage trails? Will we be
asked to re-invent History?
There is also a 'brain-drain' component. As more and more
teaching and research positions are lost in African
universities, and as university libraries and publishers are
forced to the wall, then inevitably the study of African
congeals in the West/North. There are a number of important
collaborative projects,such as those by H-Net, underway to try
and redress such inequalities, but the long-term prospects are
bleak.
There is a further dimension to this problem.
Liberation/independence in Southern Africa brought opportunities
for the recovery of the histories of indigenous peoples,
glimpsed in the controversy let loose by the 'Miscast'
exhibition of 1996. But Governments can fairly easily bury
histories not of their liking: the onslaught of the current
Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, in conjunction with
conservative historians such as Geoffrey Blainey, against 'black
armband' history proves that history in any way connected with
indigenous peoples is an easy target for dominant ruling groups.
In Serbia or Rwanda history is easily invoked to justify
conflict. The loss of public interest in history just makes it
that bit harder for non-dominant groups to be heard. Once
historians are marginalized then the problem becomes much more
than just a choice of which heritage trails to take.
 Humanities & Social Sciences Online 
|