H.E. Stolten’s panellist input to CAS seminar: Sources of Freedom Struggle 12 may 2009. Seminar programme Catherine Kennedy’s visit in Denmark
Let my first say that I am not a specialist in archives. My work on South African history has a historiographical angle. I most often analyse what other historians have already written – so for me, secondary literature often functions as primary sources. Nevertheless, I have worked in several SA archives and also written about solidarity history.
As we have heard from Christopher, there were links from the Nordic countries to South Africa’s freedom struggle through humanitarian and political support and popular boycott actions - and the history of the international anti-apartheid movement has by now been established as a recognised field of research as several conferences on the subject have shown.
The Anti-Apartheid Archives Since the end of apartheid, academics and activists have made growing efforts to collect and register material from the popular movement’s anti-apartheid struggles, and since the AAM was a classical case of international solidarity - these efforts have been genuinely global. A growing number of anti-apartheid archives have seen the light of day all over the world, from the USA, over Russia to Australia.
Let me just mention a few of these collections: African Activist Archive Project at Michigan State University Yale University Library, African Collection CAMP Collection in Chicago’s, Center for Research Libraries South African research and Archival Project, SARAP, at Howard University Anti-Apartheid Movement in Scotland Archive at Glasgow Caledonian university Archives of the British Anti-Apartheid Movement at Rhodes House Library, Oxford University Institute of Commonwealth Studies Archive in London Basler Afrika Bibliographien, General Archives International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam Catholic University of Leuven Library University of Duisburg Victoria Victoria University Archives in Australia National Library of New Zealand World Council of Churches Library and Archive Archives and Library of the Swedish Labour Movement
In South Africa there is, beside SAHA, for instance: Mayibuye Archives at University of the Western Cape National Archives of South Africa Killie Campbell collections in Durban Manuscripts and Archives Department at University of Cape Town Libraries. Museum Africa in Johannesburg McGregor Museum in Kimberley The Apartheid Archives project, a new project where psychologists are gathering narratives from ordinary people on their everyday experiences Just to mention a few. ANC’s own Archives have had a turbulent and disputed time, it seems, and have apparently not been a prioritised project. When I studied them, they were at the Liberation Movement Archives at the University of Fort Hare, but I think most of them have been moved, so only the Pan Africanist Congress archives are left?
Several AAM archives from western movements have now been deposited at SA archives: For example: The Austrian Anti-Apartheid Movement at the University of the Witwatersrand’s William Cullen Library. The Western Australia Campaign and the Irish movement at the University of the Western Cape’s Robben Island Mayibuye Archive. Some of the Dutch Anti-Apartheid Movement’s collections is now at Luthuli House, the ANC headquarter in Johannesburg. I am actually not quite sure, what I should think about this development. Should the Danish AAM archives be moved to SAHA for instance? While Catherine is in Denmark she will also visit Rigsarkivet and ABA to learn how the Danish AAM archives have been collected and stored.
Nordic Links and global solidarity It is necessary to record the history of anti-apartheid movements in Nordic countries for our own sake, but it is probably even more important for the peoples of Southern Africa to have access to these records to be able to understand their own history; this northern history is also part of their national heritage. For people in South Africa, who for generations were denied their own history, as well as access to the history of the international solidarity with their struggles, the history of the anti-apartheid movement takes on profound importance.
The development of a historiography of solidarity has just begun. After the victory over an evil and powerful regime, anti-apartheid veterans who had engaged in the struggle through many years of hardship might feel a justified need for enjoying the sweetness of triumph, and it has to be said that some of the internal accounts of the freedom struggle and solidarity history have been rather uncritical. Others have had an artificial "objective" approach or have applied a purely empirical methodology. Critical research in this field has barely started and the writing of this history in itself can be seen as an ongoing form of solidarity that is still needed. There are still histories left to be written, and they will not necessarily be simple ones since there were divisions within the AAMs, Western governments, and the African National Congress (ANC) itself. For instance, it is my impression that the Nordic organizations, especially the Danish, were somewhat more independent in their relations with the ANC than the British AAM.
The whole area of liberation theories and strategies is still quite underinvestigated by historians. It seems that while, especially after 1990, more historical studies of concrete solidarity cases have emerged, only few theoretical or principal works have been written on the theme of North-South political solidarity as such.
What was it that enabled the anti-apartheid movement’s comparatively small organisations, which for most of their existence were rather unpopular in the governments’ corridors of power, to be capable of exerting considerable international influence? How was it possible for the international anti-apartheid movement to develop effective campaigning organisations throughout 35 years and especially during the very difficult period of the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the liberation movement was effectively destroyed inside South Africa? Was it a special philosophy or ideology, or was it the policies or practices of the movement? Was it the particular mix of local anti-imperialist activists supplied with South African exiles determined to liberate their country? Was it the loyalty among the activists? Was it its internationality working in continuation of a long anti-colonial tradition?
The anti-apartheid movement of the 1970s and 1980s was a truly transnational social movement. As Seidman and Håkan Thörn have documented, activists developed a global anti-racist identity that transcended state borders. Participation in the movement changed the way many activists viewed politics at home and added a global dimension to discussions over any kind of discrimination. British participants, like their American counterparts, were certainly responding to events inside South Africa, but the movement’s appeal was also strengthened by a deepening concern about racism at home. In the case of New Zealand, participation in the anti-apartheid movement also was connected to domestic aboriginal politics. Thörn claims that it is actually difficult to establish a clear “inside” and “outside” of the South African situation because of the strong mutual influence across borders.
Patrick Mac Manus, a former chairperson of the Danish Anti-Apartheid Movement has stated that LSA/SAK found itself in a "distributing frame" between the irritability and aversion of the established political system and the strains stemming from the organization's own wildly-growing, partly uncontrollable mobilization of engaged youth. The activities of the movement alternated between the levels of the desk and of the street, between blockades and conferences, between the paroles of street theater and substantial approaches to government. The aim was to bring the liberation struggle into ordinary peoples' everyday lives by creating a broad form of participation that exceeded the narrow forms of the traditional political system. Mac Manus estimates that the movement succeeded in the sense that only very few Danes were not moved by the basic optimism of the freedom struggle and international solidarity.
As some of you will know I have worked as a researcher at the Nordic Africa Institute. Both researchers and librarians at NAI in Uppsala, Sweden, have a long tradition of dealing with the remains of the history of solidarity. For example, the Simons Papers, now located at the University of Cape Town I think, were organized by Annica van Gylswyk at NAI's library. Later, NAI has build an online database, registering the archives of the Nordic anti-apartheid NGOs: The Nordic Documentation on the Liberation Struggle in Southern Africa Project. However, there has been some - not always friendly - competition between the Nordic countries around the solidarity and aid history – and it is unfortunately symptomatic - in more than one way - that this Swedish based database lists - 29 Swedish anti-apartheid archives plus 27 sub-collections, while it only mentions 3 Danish archives altogether, which is: DanChurchAid, Danish Foreign Ministry Archives, IBIS/WUS - World University Service’s archives.
There were differences between the Nordic countries in the way in which this history was used. In the possibilities, in the levels of consciousness, and in the resources allocated for the purpose.
Sweden had the most glorious past, the most laurels to gain, and most money for the project. In short, the Swedes had a better opportunity for taking their history serious. It is an intriguing question, to which extent the convincing archival documentation of Sweden’s solidarity history has played any role in matters of goodwill, small state influence and export.
The fact is probably that there from the beginning from official side was a certain Danish carelessness towards a project which partly consisted of the history of popular movements’ oppositional achievements. The more concurrent consent between NGOs and foreign affairs department gave the Swedes a better hand. The hard-working Swedish coordinator of the overall programme was financed favourably through several years. And there was some Danish frustration of being taken hostage in a joint Nordic institution, which we were unable to use in the same way as the Swedish part.
So, the documentation of solidarity history has been used for more present purposes. From time to time, official interest from the wider world in the new South Africa has been rather high. From the Nordic Countries, this official interest has at times been marked by a turbid compound of philanthropic aid and business interests. During the transformation process under which the former liberation movement consolidated its power over society, the Nordic governments succeeded in establishing support by following up earlier forms of popular solidarity with a policy of ongoing aid and by pointing out their own national merits in a favourable light. In solidarity history, it has already been shown possible to build the historical narrative, that the anti-apartheid support by the Nordic countries was especially protracted, loyal and heroic. The NAI book series should also be assessed against this background. Goodwill was extended, which has already been shown to be worth its weight in gold. This development has hardly been to the disadvantage of South Africa, but it has probably been even better for the donor countries, representing a kind of "Janus Head" of solidarity.
Conservative historians have never given much credit to the use of history for creating the necessary idealism for liberation struggle and solidarity, but history is always used in such fundamental conflicts, and the writer to some degree have to choose side. As “independent” liberal journalistic approaches more and more dominate the media picture in South Africa and elsewhere and the alternative black press has almost disappeared, we are allowed to forget the significant role that radical and socialist forces played in the destruction of apartheid, and these forces are frequently accused for having pursued unrealistic strategies and for trying to employ “either/or-solutions”. In a process of reconciliation, it is perhaps understandable that some people wish to forget the past, to move beyond it, to let bygones be bygones. However, true reconciliation cannot be based upon ignorance.
Against this background, there is a profound need for some kind of continuation of the solidarity movement and for a continued engagement from the former activists in order to uphold the pressure for a fulfilment of the ideals of the liberation struggle. To relate openly to this is an important mission for solidarity history, as I see it.
The need of historical consciousness in the new SA The many passionate interpretations add fascinating dimensions to historical research on South Africa. Grassroots activists across the entire political spectrum have used history as a resource for political engagement. It is therefore not surprising that popular history was disseminated far and wide during the last 25 years of the anti-apartheid struggle. At the University of the Witwatersrand, academic engagement with popular history developed within the History Workshop, which explored and published “counter-histories”. Committed “peoples history” and “history from below” distinguish these works, which were used as alternative teaching material by local union education committees, amateur history writers, and teachers in need of meaningful and relevant learning material in the classroom.
The passionate discussion about the use of history for freedom and democracy during the years of struggle was partly inspired by international solidarity and exiled academics. The time may well have come for the South Africans to take a new look at the images and myths of their era of repression in the new light that their liberation has turned out to be more of a neo-liberal victory than the national democratic revolution many had expected. Even if the constitution of 1996, in principle, solved all formal problems of social, racial, and gender discrimination with one stroke - ANC liberal elite politics since has left it to every single citizen to pursue her/his own happiness - and in reallife, changes regarding income and social position have been inadequate from the perspective of most black South Africans.
Despite much research, many of the fundamental questions from “the great history debate” of the 1980’s actually remain open: was apartheid organised mainly around race or class? Around culture or economy? Or in other words: to what extent can it be decided, on the basis of historical research, if ethnic/cultural or social relations are the most important for identity creation and for the discrimination of others? Also: The question of to what extent capitalism was the main reason for brutal social repression along race lines for most of last century, or to what extent capitalism in fact liberated South Africa from outdated political apartheid, still has implications for strategies for social struggle, economic policy choices, possibilities of reconciliation, etc., at least if the preferred course includes the deepening of democracy and the broadening of equality.
Given the history of SA, one might expect to find a profound interest in the history of that country, but the study of history in the new South Africa has in some areas experienced serious decline. After 1994, the number of history students has been declining at many universities, even if the situation now seems to have stabilised.
Several explanations for the local “crisis of history” have been suggested. The many years of apartheid education discredited institutionalised history and even if liberal, radical, and nationalist groups used history in their struggle for democracy, many black South Africans came to see history as a type of knowledge with which they could not identify. A more controversial explanation could be that while the use of history at a certain stage during the struggle helped people in an instrumental way to meet their most important need, that is, to get rid of apartheid, the main priority for most people today is to pursue an individual career on a free market.
During segregation and apartheid, the writing of South African history was marked by the absence of black historians. With a political climate that did not exactly invite critical intellectual questioning and an official regime ideology based on a view of history, which saw the white man as destined to superiority, it is not surprising that the great majority of South Africans, already excluded from parliamentarian political life, were also denied access to their own history. The whites had colonised history and the restricted education did not give black people any feeling of a past they could identify with. Even if there are examples of outstanding black history writers, they have been almost invisible in the institutional communication of history, as they largely still are, despite governmental initiatives, idealistic programmes in history departments, and a rising interest from white authors of history. There are, however, positive signs. A significant tendency is that universities abroad reach out for collaboration with institutions in the new South Africa. South African based historians now write in greater numbers for international journals and participate in more international conferences than ever before. Some of the well-known universities attract considerable numbers of undergraduates from the best universities in the world. The isolation of the apartheid period is definitely over.
The shift in political power in 1994 has gradually been followed by attempts to renegotiate the meaning of the South African past, so that it will reflect both the experiences of the black majority and the new elite’s demand for stability. The heritage industry has become particularly involved in the process of reconciliation as it often seeks to promote a common history, which sometimes glosses over struggles of a conflict-ridden past.
The combination of scholarly work and political engagement remains a central issue in South African historiography. Can, for instance, the traditions and ideals of the former national liberation movement continue to inspire professional historical research in a meaningful way? What significance could partiality resulting from this have, now that the movement’s leading organisation constitutes the ruling party? To see the importance of this question, one just has to read a few examples from the new (more or less) official history writing.
Immediately after 1994, many initial post-apartheid efforts were aimed at using the past to mobilise collective enthusiasm for fundamental changes. However, concentrating on the common future of all South Africans, was the way the South African government chose rather early in Nelson Mandela’s presidency. Mandela actually called on South Africans to “forget the past”. As social inequalities continued to develop, this picture changed slightly. Under Thabo Mbeki’s leadership, the past has been used to unify and regain pride for the black majority, but more I think in the shape of heritage projects than in the form of history writing. As in many European nations in the era before the developed welfare state, some kind of patriotic mobilisation seems to be desirable for social stability.
Even if President Mbeki’s claim, that historians have ignored Africans in their writings, might not be very accurate, it is too easy for the historians just to blame the South African government for their situation. Some historians still seem to be relatively unconcerned with the legitimate feelings of black communities and their need for counter-histories of freedom struggle, even if it is, I think, necessary to recognise that there were in fact victims and heroes in that struggle. The emergence of identity politics in post-apartheid South Africa was hardly possible to avoid, and the idea of a common past that all South Africans can gather around is probably something of an illusion.
The majority of South Africans may have a past they can at least partly identify with; namely, the resistance against colonisation and the freedom struggle, but that is not the past of most whites, and having conflicting pasts is not necessarily very conducive to the building of a common, harmonious nation.
A similar explanation for the limited official interest in contemporary history may lie in the fact that social protests were an important part of the liberation struggle. To stress that today, however, could lead to the realisation that, at least from a structural point of view, the historical conflict is not over. That might help explain why neutral, present-day symbolism is often preferred to signify shared citizenship.
A couple of parallel reasons for the current shortage of dynamism inside history may be suggested: first, that so few African researchers have entered into the profession; second, that radical liberatory history became less relevant during what many saw as the ANC-government’s social demobilisation. There is no “wave to ride” as Nuttall and Wright have expressed it. So ending this input, I will ask, as I do in my book: to what extent was South African historical writing actually liberated with the fall of apartheid?
Topics for discussion The TRC. Gaps in History. Outreach, applied use of history, human rights. Challenge official history, arms sales.
TRC: Some researchers distinguish between individual and social justice and believes that in the need for national unity, the achievement of individual justice is less important than to ensure the higher goals of social peace and stability. The work of the TRCs can only be understood, if one looks at its social functions as part of a national compromise and reconciliation process rather than its responsibility to individuals. Some of the philosophy was: TRC offers a unique opportunity for reconciliation, and creates the basis for a common South African identity. Through a transitional system of reconciliation politics the citizens learn to use the debate and constructive criticism so that it is not channelled into violence or political power showdowns. It is difficult to criticise the TRC, since it is almost holy. The hearings with tears and personal emotions raised it to something untouchable. There was massive press coverage. Of course it is good to highlight both the system of suppression together with criminal acts of the freedom movements; this must be brought to light. But it is important to keep proportions in mind: The Commission sometimes treated crimes against the people committed by the state in the same way as the necessary violence issued during the freedom struggle against a colonial dictatorship. The reconciliation part comes before the truth part. In addition, criminals were not punished, but granted amnesty in great style. It is not that I seek revenge against individuals. My main problem is that the stories of individual suffering covered over the structural reasons for apartheid and the need for deep structural and social changes. Some would like to reveal the TRC as a project aimed at creating a smokescreen over the real structural injustices in the country. The preconditions should be made clear: It was part of a reconciliation project, rather than actually an attempt to create justice. Yet the TRC is also accused of having created new divisions between black and white South Africans. But this maybe is considered a lesser evil than the exposure of apartheid as a mechanism mainly for exploitation and labour control – and the consequences that would follow from that. I think I can remember that the hearings of the private business world’s involvement with apartheid took three days altogether…
|