Midterm ENGL 224 Monuments, Memorials and Monstrosities Al-Kassim #620 BuToThis is a take home, open book midterm exam. Please use 12pt font and double space. The exam is in two parts with an extra credit at the end. The essay response should be 4-5 (not longer) pages double-spaced. Bring your hard copy to class on Tuesday. Failure to do so will result in points taken off of your final grade. Failure to appear in class and to bring your hardcopy will result in points deducted. Do not forget to reply to the extra credit. This is an open book, take home exam. I. Short Answer Questions, 60 points/100 Answer the questions below in a few complete sentences. Be as detailed as possible, offer concrete instances.

1. Explain how the Khoisan have figured in Afrikaner claims to self-identity as argued by Coombes. Be attentive to historical shifts in such claiming. Include dates.

The Khoisan people have been regarded by many as the “First People” of Africa. In the early 19th Century, they were often described as "earthmen", accompanying European travelling freak shows. Coombes argues that "the representation of the Khoisan was clearly used as a sign of a specifically "South African" indigeneity at sensitive times when the construction of an image of the country as more than just another outpost of the British Empire was part of a bigger political agenda." The Khoisan people have struggled with self-identity ever since. The 20th century many important events, such as the 1910 Battle Re-enactment and the 1936 “bushman camp, where it was attempted to locate a “pure bred” bushman.

In 1952, the Jan van Riebeeck Tercentenary Festival took place. It featured the Khoisan people within a special enclosure. Leslie Witz points out that “the presentation of Bushman culture and history at the festival was highly selective and omitted the history of dispossesion and extermination by settlers in Namibia...". The performance focused on “productive labour”, showing how the “Bantu races” were benefiting from the “clean” and “modern” conditions provided by the Whites. The Bushmen were constructed in the eyes of the public as a “dying race” in need of saving. Because of this, 1952 was also the year they introduced a self-appointed commissioner for the preservation of the Bushmen by the name of P.J. Schoeman.

Coombes argues that by “silencing the processes of genocide, and casting the knowledge of the bushmen in the mould of a curious

unchanging society which was in danger of extinction”, Schoeman was “situating the bushmen into a discourse of nationing. From Witz’s research, it was found that even though the organizers went through much trouble to promote this idea of a progressive modern nation, caring for its indigenous people, they were not entirely convincing. The Bushmen themselves were disgusted and offended with the audience and their constant interference. Some even went as far to call the Whites baboons and refused to perform on demand.

In conclusion, it can be said that the Khoisan people were place on a pedestal, “as part of the promotion of a legitimate Afrikaner nationalism and the emergence of the new state”. The narrative produces an interesting juxtaposition between the positive portrayal on the Bushmen’s presence in South Africa and the racist policies of the Apartheid. In fact, many of the myths which form the foundation of the Apartheid claim that the Dutch had every bit as much right to the land as other "intruders". These myths tend to position the Khoisan in a light which portrayed them as a primitive version of early man, giving way to the superior civilization of the Europeans. The SAM Diorama placed labels which consistently refer to Khoisan in past tense, implying their inevitable extinction.

2. What links exist between ANC and IRA political prisoners and how did they describe this linkage?

3. According to Coombes what are the reasons for including working-class people and sensibilities in the Franco-British exhibition?

The early 20th century was a complex and contradictory time for national identity in Britain. In 1908, the Franco-British Exhibition, a large public fair, was held in London to celebrate and cement the Entente Cordiale signed in 1904 between the United Kingdom and France. The fair was considered the largest of its kind in Britain, and was the first international exhibit founded by two countries. The fair was meant to show the progression into a modern era, which caused the superiority of the Caucasian races to surface in different sections of the exhibition. Specifically, the concept of an Empire was being dissolved, which resulted in a minority who still strongly believed in the necessity of imperial enterprise. This was a sensitive time not only for international relations, but also domestically within the UK. In this

sense, the Franco-British exhibition can be accredited with bringing together London’s ‘East’ and ‘West’ sides.

Specifically, it can be said that the exhibition was created with the intention of including the working-class citizens. There were even special incentives to provide access to the fair for those living in rural areas. Coombes suggests that the “degree of attention that these particular outings attracted in the local and national press… [suggested] that the [working-class citizens] appearance was especially important.” Social imperialists at the time, as well as contemporary reports give “the impression of a docile workforce enjoying the benefits of their generous employers’ thoughtful provision, and thus profiting from the accumulated wealth of the nation.” (190) This carefully planned inclusion showed a growing awareness towards the middle class. The rise of the Independent Labour Party during this time was another factor that contributed to this inclusion. Perhaps they hoped the vision presented at the fair would promote a more unified Britain.

The fair was divided into different sections called “villages”. The British section housed displays from many of the colonies such as Canada, Fiji, and Nigeria. While both the British and French had the same avenues for presentation, it is “important to emphasize, from the start, the differential status assigned to each pavilion and their respective “village”.

Interestingly enough, one of the dominating aspects of the representations of colonies and colonised races was the degree in which cultural production was used in establishing a racial hierarchy. This Hierarchy more or less featured the African colonies at the bottom, India somewhere in the middle, and Canada, Australia, and New Zealand at the top. Coombes believes that the exhibit functioned on a level which promoted Britsh sovereignty, perhaps again to promote unification with London, and on a level which only other professionals with a similar initiative of presenting ethnographic collections could appreciate.

In conclusion the Franco-British exhibition was a confusing time for national identity. The French and British were just attempting to solidify their relationship. The fair also served to strengthen the British working class and their patriotism. Unfortunately, this was done by presenting various classes as unprogressive, solidifying the racial hierarchy and perhaps even cementing some of the stereotypes that persist in today’s media.

4. The exhibition “Miscast” engaged what forms of restaging or mining the museum?

Miscast was an exhibition created by a practicing artist and lecturer at the Michaelis School of Fine Art. Largely controversial during its 1996 opening at the South African National Gallery, the exhibition was intended to provide a critical view in which the ways the Khoisan were “pathologized, dispossessed, and all but eradicated through colonialism and apartheid.”(230) However, Miscast was also devised to justify the ways in which science, religion, and literature had been responsible for promoting “a series of highly contentious and actively destructive myths around these people.”(230)

Miscast was based on an “experiential installation” which focuses on the different ways vision and visibility produced the object historically. In the main room, a quotation from Greg Dening’s Mr. Bligh’s Bad Language: “No-one can hope to [act as] mediator… Nor can anyone speak just for the one, just for the other. There is no escape from the politics of our knowledge, but that politics is not in the past. That politics is in the present.” Black-and-white archive photographs of the Khoisan at other historical instances (ie. Van Riebeeck Fair) are displayed at both ends of the room. Within the same walls however, recessed display cases showcased artifacts “related to specific individuals who had played a part in the narrative of scientific inquiry.”(231) This served as a counterpart to the other displays which focused on physical anthropology, specifically the activities of Lloyd and Bleek. By juxtaposing these displays, both sets of artifacts are shown as equally valuable and imply that the owners are equally significant in the construction of the nation’s history.

In another area of Miscast, thirteen casts of body parts, made from Drury’s molds, were arranged in a semicircle. Remnants of headless bodies lit by an ambient glowing light bore an uncanny yet disturbing resemblance to “the ghostly remains of those frozen in time after the volcanic destruction of Pompeii.” (232) In the center of this room stands a circle of rifles supported by a flagpole. The base consisted of a “gray brick structure containing windows found in a blockhouse defense, a jail, a church, and beside it a “garden” contained a half-buried box with a collection of cast human remains, cacti, and five books, half buried, with the spines collectively spelling the word “truth”. (233) One noteworthy section of this room is a box full of cardboard labelled with two dates, the date of the event, and that of the recording in the historical narrative. Coombes claims that “it was intended as a self-reflexive commentary on the constructed

nature of the archive.”(233) This effect was enforced by placing mirrors so that the viewers’ own reflections were cast. Another section of the same room showed jumbled body parts. Perhaps the most contentious aspect of Miscast was in the second display room. The floor was covered in vinyl, screen-printed pages from nineteenth and early twentieth century academic journals and government reports. Almost every article showed the Khoisan in a negative light. The walls were lined of pictures from the daily life of the Khoisan people, not portrayed timelessly however, but in a fashion which showed them putting various consumer commodities to use. Video cameras were positioned on the floor as if recording the reactions to push for a self-reflexive response.

The final room exhibited a selection of research material that went into the making of Miscast for the general public. The walls were covered with Khoisan rock paintings from various researchers.

Miscast took place during the emergence of the new democratic nation. Coombes applauds its efforts but believes that the organizers may have missed the mark. Many of its subtle clues were left unappreciated, simply because much of the conceptual framing required to understand the piece required the viewer to be “well versed in the histories that are being deconstructed and to have perceived them as somehow problematic.” (237) Because of this, it is believed that the general public may have misunderstood or misinterpreted the exhibition pieces. Part of this misunderstanding can be attributed to Weinberg’s choice to incorporate modern objects into the Bushmen daily life (ie., picture of Khoisan with coffee tin). This was extremely contradictory as the idea was to “make the Bushmen look more human so that [viewers] would know how these people look” (237) within their natural environments, and that they were a “primordial people carrying on a way of life close to nature and untouched by modernity and colonialism.” (238) Many of the Khoisan people remarked that they saw the exhibition as a “dehumanising portrayal” of their ancestors and an insensitive way of alleviating white South Africans of their complicity in history.

Miscast shows how critical distance is necessary to appreciate the dialectical intentions behind the exhibition pieces which show trauma and violence. In a sense, this is something that the SAM exhibit does much better, as Coombes argues that the making of the Bushmen Diorama demonstrates a “kind of integrity to the deconstructive display… precisely because the institution itself is directly implicated.” (239) Another reason why the Khoisan visitors required this critical distance to fully appreciate the exhibition is because “the Khoisan are

still a dispossessed minority in the “new” South African.”

5. Fusco organizes the reactions to their performance according to type. What categories of response and reaction does she list? Be as specific and concise as possible.

Fusco's interactive caged performance produced a variety of reactions. The performance, which focused less on their individual actions, but rather on how people interacted with them and interpreted their actions, showed that children generally produced the most humane response, seeking direct contact, trying to shake their hands, or offering food. Audience reactions of those who believe the fiction occasionally include moral outrage that was often expressed paternalistically. While the majority of those who were upset only stayed that way for five minutes or so. One interesting note is that the reactions change depending on the locale. For example in Spain, Fusco makes the argument that because Spain is a "country with no strong tradition of Protestant morality or empirical philosophy, opposition to our work came from conservatives who were concerned with its political implications, and not with the ethics of dissimulation"(P.158).

Regardless, some patterns have emerged which largely divide the reactions between race, class, and nationality. It was found that people of colour, who at least initially believe that the performance was legitimate, expressed discomfort because of their identification with their situation. The reaction's from the zoo guards are noteworthy as well, as they were the target of much scrutiny during the performance. The director of Native American programs for the Smithsonian concluded that the "fake" presentation sparked the exact same reaction her more accurate representations have in the past. This lead to staff meetings to discuss the audience reactions, producing a pretext for internal discussions regarding the extent of self-criticism the museums could openly be engaged in.

The audience members who realized it was an act chastised the performers for "immorally" deceiving the viewers. This reaction was popular among the British, as well as intellectual and cultural bureaucrats in the U.S. While there are indivudual examples of citizens voicing their disgust, Fusco believes that the general audience fail to see the performance as an interactive art piece, leaving audience responses to be less pedantic and more outwardly emotional.

Whites outside the U.S. have been found more formal in their reactions than americans, and have appeared less self-conscious about

expressing their curiosity, going as far to make stereotypical animal sounds. Some have responded violently trying to assult them, while others have congratulated them in private, perhaps as a way to disassociate themselves from their racial group.Suprisingly, it is found that the majority of whites who believed the piece was real, particularily Americans, never questioned the legitimacy of this new race, their made up language, or question the geography of the madeup island. One man even remarked that he had seen the island in National Geographic.

The reactions from Latin Americans see more variance according to class. Many upper-class Latin American tourist were vocal with their disgust that their part of the world was represented in such a debased manner. On the other hand, many other Latin Americans and Native Americans instantly recognized the significance of the piece, and approving of the message. Regardless of whether or not they believe it, the authenticity of the environment, such as the costumes, were never criticized. However, white American and Europeans have spent hours criticizing the authenticity of the piece, perhaps missing the larger symbolic meaning. Another common complaint in Spain was that their skin was not dark enough.

Another difference is the reaction between men and women. Fusco found that women have been consistently more physical in their reactions, while men tend to be more verbally abusive.

6. In Unconfessed references are made to dates (p.65) and history of British/Afrikaner relations (p.102) by Sila and as reported conversation between Oumiesies’s slaves. Explain the historical significance of these dates as well as their significance for Sila and the other slaves.

1806 – Sila+will people becomes free1808 – Theron let’s Sila work for Hancke1810 – Carolina born (Spaasie chose name)1814 – Camies born1813 – Baro born

“..remember, when the English took the country from the Dutch they ended all torture, in 1798”

Also the year Sila moved from Neethlings to Oumiesies

Spaasie says “ the Dutch will have the country again anyway and no English care about us anyway”

Sila and Babies, Mother selling babies

1800 July, Theron threatens Sila (before will)1802 paper will almost burns, Omousies takes it back English take country from Dutch, key hidden behind headboard. Theron denies paper will.

Page 114 animal comparison

Essay Question, 40 points/100 In 1 focused essay of no more than 5 pages please respond to one of the following 2 questions. Do not forget to reply to the extra credit. This is an open book, take home exam.

1. In “Theory of Infantile Citizenship” Lauren Berlant states, “the transformation of consciousness, sensuality, causality and aesthetics [that] Lisa experiences is, again, typical of the infantile citizenship story, in which the revelation of the practical impossibility of utopian nationality produces gothic, uncanny, miraculating effects on the infantile persons whose minds are being transformed by ‘true’, not idealized, national knowledge” p. 43. In your own words, explain what Berlant means by 1. “national knowledge” and 2. “infantile citizenship story.” What role does the “gothic, uncanny, miraculating” play in the relationship between these elements? In your analysis of the passage be sure to offer some explanation for her claim that “utopian nationality” is deemed impossible in the narrative.

2. Annie Coombes explains the intent of her research on p. 10. Describe and analyze the two poles of representation of historical trauma in the public sphere that she articulates there. Then link this account of two different kinds of history to her statement on p. 245 where she makes the case for fine arts as a practice of the representation of traumatic history. How do the fine arts resolve the dichotomy presented on p.10? From the reading for this class offer an example not discussed by Coombes that illustrates this resolution.

EXTRA CREDIT for 5 points. Identify the passage below, describe its context in the text in which it appears and explain how the tension presented functions in the text.

“Two stumbling blocks in particular are frequently encountered in this kind of commemorative project. On the one hand, the abstraction of the designs is seen as inappropriate to either the conceptual or the actual task of embodying the experience of the survivors. On the other hand in most instances survivors are attached to the idea of some kind of monument because it provides a focal point for enactments and rituals that themselves are the symbolic and abstracted embodiment of their experiences.”