Midterm ENGL 224 Monuments, Memorials and Monstrosities

Al-Kassim #620 BuTo

This 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 20
th
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 Witzs 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 Bushmens 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 20
th
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 Londons 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
todays 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 Denings Mr. Blighs 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 nations history.
In another area of Miscast, thirteen casts of body parts, made from Drurys 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
Weinbergs 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
Oumiesiess slaves. Explain the historical significance of these dates as well as their
significance for Sila and the other slaves.

1806 Sila+will people becomes free
1808 Theron lets Sila work for Hancke
1810 Carolina born (Spaasie chose name)
1814 Camies born
1813 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.