Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
08 October 2020 | Story Motsaathebe Serekoane | Photo Supplied


We need to acknowledge that inherent in opening up spaces that were previously reserved for exclusive inhabitation and use is problematic in the contestation for place and symbolic public representation. Broadening the heritage landscape allows us an opportunity to bridge the existing gaps in the heritage space, in particular, askew representation through monuments and declared sites.

The country’s 2030 Developmental Plan requires South Africa to continuously reflect on progress made since the dawn of democracy in 1994. The scope is big; my focus here is on the heritage landscape. I do not want to create an impression that this matter exists in isolation, the intersectional engagement is imminent. The conversation on heritage is vast. My summary of all I have read and heard is that at stake in South Africa, with the historical legacy of segregation policies, is the competing notion of space, conflicting and often-competing ideological notion of commemoration or memorialisation, and the lack of shared collective memory and meaning of public representation. Effectively we don’t know what to do with our historical text and footprints. 

“A community is divided when their perception of the same thing is divided” …Steve Biko

Three questions 

This is a challenge for the notion of inclusion (aka social cohesion) and a threat to preservation and conservation of the country’s heritage resources material. It is equally important that I bring to your attention related conversations with a position that asserts that forfeiting the past for the sake of the future is perhaps an overly simplistic way of conceptualising and describing how society moves beyond conflict or pain. The argument for imagining inclusive spaces necessitates a paradigm shift in our thinking. The literature argues for a move from multiculturalism to interculturalism because of cross-cultural overlaps, interaction, and negotiation. The interculturalism approach goes beyond opportunities and respect for existing cultural differences, to the pluralist transformation of public space, civic culture, and institutions. In line with this view, reconfiguration of public spaces towards inclusive ends would have to emphasise the politics of recognition and negotiation of difference. So where does this leave us? There are no easy answers. As the country embarks on the process of auditing and spatial identity transformation I put forward the following three questions:
• Whose conception of the past should prevail in the public realm?
• Whose conception of the present should prevail in the current realm for the future?
• How do we balance the old and the new so that we do not dump history?

Sustainable change will require consultation and participation

Advancing change affords interested and affected communities to develop an awareness of layered complexities of our history and intersectional voices (some louder than others), and promotes the practices of collaboration and capacity-building with community members to advance sustainable change. Sustainable change will require, in line with the democratic principles, that the review process acknowledges consultation and participation. Ideally, the audit and review process should be designed to encourage conversation, reflection, and social analysis. The transformation of spatial social milieu should assume collective ownership and management of space founded on the permanent and temporary participation of the 'interested and affected parties', with their multiple, varied, and even contradictory political interests. In the review of the current symbolic landscape for inclusion, the spatial identity transformation must be negotiated. It must be developed from a focal point that understands the interrelationship between space and spatial inscription through the form of street names, symbols, and public art. 

I can’t pre-empt the end of the process, the process should inform the outcome. Should it be that some of the statues are to be “repositioned and relocated”, as also stated in the president's speech, this should not be equated to dumping history/historical dumping. Reposition and relocation are plausible alternative arguments in the spatial reconfiguration discourse. If it is done well it should contribute to the educational programme of the country. It should also be kept in mind that memorabilia are protected by the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) No 25 1999. Subsequently, the audit and review will require a nuanced approach guided by the NHRA (including relevant legislation) and leaning towards a process-oriented, person-based approach to allow for agency/agility and new possibilities (cf. SONA pronouncement of imagining the New City). Imminent is a guiding or reference document that draws lessons from review processes demonstrated by, among others, the University of Free State’s review and ultimately relocation of the president MT Steyn statue to the War Museum. I believe the South African Heritage Resources Authority and its Provincial Heritage Resources Authority should guide the process. 

Heritage serves a social and economic function

Just as a footnote, it is prudent that we remind ourselves that heritage, in addition to many things, serves a social and economic function. Although I acknowledge the views that some of the symbols in the public spaces trigger painful memories of the past, losing those will rob the country of its rich narrative that, in line with NHRA, is to be bequeathed to the next generation, but also that can boost the country’s economy through heritage cultural tourism footprints. 

Ultimately, “Our heritage is unique and precious and it cannot be renewed. It helps us to define our cultural identity and therefore lies at the heart of our spiritual well-being and has the power to build our nation. It has the potential to affirm our diverse cultures and in so doing, shape our national character” …NHRA, No. 25 1999

Opinion article by Motsaathebe Serekoane, Lecturer: Anthropology at the UFS.


News Archive

Multidisciplinary conference on TB control
2003-09-22

Theme: Tuberculosis control: a multidisciplinary approach to research, policy and practice Venue: CR Swart Auditorium, University of the Free State Campus, Bloemfontein Date: 11 and 12 November 2003 Time: 11 November, 19:00-20:30 AND 12 November 08:30-17:00

Tuesday, 11 November - 19:00-20:30 (registration from 18:30) and Wednesday, 12 November - 08:30-17:00 (registration from 07:30)

The Honourable MEC for Health in the Free State will officially open the Conference on the evening of 11 November, while Prof Frederick Fourie (Vice-Chancellor and Rector of the University of the Free State) will attend to the welcoming. In addition, Prof Françoise Portaels (Institute of Tropical Medicine, Belgium) and Dr Refiloe Matji (National Department of Health, South Africa) will respectively present a global and a South African perspective on TB. The majority of the presentations will follow on 12 November.

Main thrust of Conference

The main thrust of the Conference is to disseminate both research results and policy/managerial matters relevant to TB and TB control, and to facilitate discourse among researchers and health policy makers/managers/practitioners in the field of TB control. Presenters of papers, as well as delegates are, therefore, drawn from both academic/research institutions, and from health service sectors involved in TB control in all provinces and in neighbouring countries.

Topics of presentations

A variety of topics will be dealt with during presentations, such as: New challenges in the global control of MDR-TB New strategies and policies on MDR-TB in South Africa A South African perspective on TB control A provincial perspective on implementing the national TB control policy

The role of the public district hospital in TB control Tuberculosis control through DOTS Case detection strategies

TB in children Hospital to clinic: is this the missing link? Patient compliance with DOT for TB Challenges for effective health communications in a multicultural context

The economics of TB Frequency of multiple infections with M. tuberculosis in pulmonary TB patients HIV/AIDS and TB, etc.

Speakers

Among the speakers will be Dr Victor Litlhakanyane (Head of Health: Free State); Prof Françoise Portaels and Dr Leen Rigouts (Institute of Tropical Medicine, Belgium); Dr Reliloe Matji (Director: NTBC Programme); Ntsiki Jolingana (Director: HIV, AIDS, TB and Communicable Diseases, Free State) and Annatjie Peters (Free State TB Coordinator); Dr Karin Weyer (Medical Research Council); Profs Herman Meulemans, Diana De Graeve, Luc Pauwels and Christiane Timmerman (University of Anwerp, Belgium); Dr Lara Fairall (UCT Lung Institute, University of Cape Town); Prof Frikkie Booysen (Department of Economics, University of the Free State); Christo Heunis, Ega Janse van Rensburg-Bonthuyzen, Zacheus Matebesi and Kobus Meyer (CHSR&D); Dr Mary Ednington (School of Public Health, Wits); Dr Carmen Báez and Sabine Verkuijl (ISDS); Anneke Van der Spoel-Van Dijk (Medical Microbiology, University of the Free State).

Costs

There will be no registration fees. However, delegates are expected to arrange their own transport and accommodation, or arrange for sponsorships themselves.

Contact details in case of inquiries and confirmation:

Postal Address: The Director, CHSR&D, PO Box 339, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, 9300 Fax: 051 448 0370 Tel: 051 401 2181 OR 051 401 3256 E-mail: vrensh@mail.ufs.ac.za (Dingie van Rensburg) OR neljc@mail.ufs.ac.za (Ohna Nel)

PLEASE, CONFIRM YOUR ATTENDANCE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BUT AT THE LATEST BEFORE 25 OCTOBER 2003 ? BY TELEPHONE, FAX OR E-MAIL.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept