Foreign Policy Blogs

What’s In A Name?

One of the mandates of the New South Africa was to try to Africanize many of the names of places and institutions. After all, in that predominantly African country, why would the new, non-racial democracy want to perpetuate the names of the heroes of the white regime, the very people who had disfranchised Africans, who had perpetuated segregation and brought it to its apogee with apartheid? South Africa has eleven official languages and one of the goals after 1994 became to give each of them greater representation.

And so slowly but surely names changed. The very structure of the country shifted with the transformation of the four old provinces to nine new ones, some with names such as “Limpopo” and “Mpumalanga.” Universities and schools and public facilities changed names, often to honor liberation heroes, at other times simply to symbolllically transform those facilities into something more indigenous. Pretoria took on the name Tshwane, though many in the country still refer to it by its old name.

The process of revisiting nomenclature has not always been an easy one. Language and names are powerful cultural forces. When a movement emerged to change the name of Rhodes University, the “Oxford on the Veld,” arguably the most Anglophile institution in all of South Africa, the backlash was fast and fierce. The titular foundation of the school, based on that most emblematic of colonial settlers, Cecil John Rhodes, endured. Rhodes University's problematic name lives on where so many others gave way.

So it is not entirely surprising that naming continues to be a source of controversy. In June 2003 Arts and Culture Minister Pallo Jordan ordered The northern Limpopo town of Louis Trichardt to change its name to Makhado. A group of businessmen brought a case against the name change. In an earlier decision they lost, but today the Supreme Court of Appeal reversed the decisions of lower courts. Makhado is once again Louis Trichardt.  

So who was Louis Trichardt? He was a Boer leader of the Voortrekkers, the intrepid Boers who left the Cape Colony to stake out their own claim to South Africa's frontier. The Great Trek of the 1830s is at the center of the great founding myth of Afrikanerdom and Trichardt is one of the apodictic figures in that mythology. The myth of the Trek fueled the myth of Afrikaners as a chosen people. And of course a central aspect of this mythology is the white supremacy that came to characterize to much of Afrikaner society, especially in the political realm.

Trichardt, whose expedition took him all the way to Delgoa Bay (what is now Maputo, Mozambique), died of malaria along with nearly two dozen other members of his expedition. His name lived on largely because he was the only major Great Trek leader to have kept a diary.

I am not one to deny a people their history, their legends, even their blemishes. But given the role that the Great Trek played in establishing Afrikaner nationalism, and given the role that Afrikaner nationalism played in establishing apartheid, I’m not sure that the New South Africa has any responsibility to continue to commemorate those whose legacy served to perpetuate, refine, and perfect the highest stage of white supremacy. Louis Trichardt died deep in the heart of Africa. Perhaps it is time that the town named after him let that name die as well.   

     
    Add a comment

    Comments (11)

    1. Chris Louw Thursday - 29 / 03 / 2007 Reply
      I suggest you read Hermann Giliomee's seminal book "The Afrikaners: Biography of a People". Maybe it will help you overcome your simplistic view of what motivated Afrikaners in history. Then, maybe it won't. There's no-one as biased and self-deluded as a white English-speaking South African.
    2. Derek Catsam
      Derek Catsam Friday - 30 / 03 / 2007 Reply
      Chris -- What a perplexing comment, lacking as it does much actual substance in relation to anything I wrote in my post. I have read Giliomee's book and think it is quite important, the best on the subject, in fact. But I'm not certain what that has to do with what I have actually written. Someone smart enough to have found a blog and commented on it ought to know that a certain level of reductionism is involved in blogging -- a blog post is not intended to be a comprehensive treatment of a topic. But if you have substantive criticisms about what I have written, rather than come in with your reading suggestions and accusations of my simplistic rendering of things and generally pedantic tone, how about addressing your specific complaints about what I have written? As for your largely useless ad hominem generalization about English- speaking white South Africans, I am more than willing to say that if the discussion comes down to which of the two white populations that overwhelmingly supported apartheid was worse than the other, I've already won. (By the way, did you miss my point about Rhodes University's name? Was I too subtle?) If you believe that the town of Louis Trichardt should retain that name, then how about making a case for it? If you believe that for the black masses in South Africa the Great Trek is not a generally noxious mythology, by all means, provide that argument. I suppose I am just being hardegat, or perhaps simply verkrampte about those forty lost years of apartheid. If so, enlighten me. But let's try to leave the pedantry at the front desk, shall we? dc
    3. Tanzman Sunday - 01 / 04 / 2007 Reply
      It seems to me that most English speaking South Africans are confused about South Africa's past, or just ignorant. Maybe both. I mean really, does the English establishment in South Africa honestly expect the world to believe they were innocent bystanders during the apartheid years, and before? Victims even? The English establishment has still not shed the veil of apartheid. Even after all this time. They still believe they were somehow separated from all that took place in South Africa. "It wasn't me sir, is was that Afrikaner" Well if that was true then I guess the really wealthy areas in all the major cities in South Africa will have to be Afrikaans dominated? If the Afrikaners were in control politically "economically?" surely they had all the money? Rhodes, indeed.
    4. phillip Monday - 02 / 04 / 2007 Reply
      How bizarre, I posted a reply here yesterday but it seems to be gone??? So much for free speech.
    5. Derek Catsam
      Derek Catsam Monday - 02 / 04 / 2007 Reply
      Tanzman -- I agree with you about English complicity in both the apartheid years and especially pre-apartheid. Louis Trichardt just happens to have provided the example in question. Phillip -- I've no idea about the comment about which you speak. But this is not a free speech issue on my end. dc
    6. Pete Monday - 23 / 04 / 2007 Reply
      .....I'm not sure that the New South Africa has any responsibility to continue to commemorate those whose legacy served to perpetuate, refine, and perfect the highest stage of white supremacy. Louis Trichardt died deep in the heart of Africa. Perhaps it is time that the town named after him let that name die as well..... So along the same rational, what do you think about the Zimbabwean crisis where the people seem to be suffering a lot more than in the separatist/colonial (read racist) regime of Ian Smith. Would it now be feasible to change any reference (namings) to Mugabe and his government or does the argument only qualify for someone of a different race? put it another way....in your opinion does the name change depend on perception and it's tie to race and/or to brutality and oppression? pete
    7. Derek Catsam
      Derek Catsam Monday - 23 / 04 / 2007 Reply
      Pete -- That is a great question. I'd be happy to see most or all vestiges of Mugabe's legacy torn down. I do think there is a difference between white minority control in which blacks were given no place at the table and putative black rule. But Mugabe the president failed Mugabe the liberation hero. Race matters, in other words, but so too does oppression of any sort. Cheers -- dc
    8. Phetane Friday - 24 / 10 / 2008 Reply
      This is a good article, and I agree with it 100%. We live in a new South Africa where change of virtually anything is necessary. And while I am not in favour of all the ANC leaders giving themselves a pat on the back (for a job half done) by naming all the towns after themselves, people must realise that this is Africa and that names like Ladysmith and Newcastle belong in England, and name like Rhodes belong alongside Hitler and Stalin and not in South Africa.
    9. Phetane Friday - 24 / 10 / 2008 Reply
      This is a good article, and I agree with it 100%. We live in a new South Africa where change of virtually anything is necessary. And while I am not in favour of all the ANC leaders giving themselves a pat on the back (for a job half done) by naming all the towns after themselves, people must realise that this is Africa and that names like Ladysmith and Newcastle belong in England, and name like Rhodes belong alongside Hitler and Stalin in hell and not in South Africa. Here is a trackback for a similar on my blog http://mirrormiglactic.blogspot.com/2008/10/african-prespective-on-name-change.html

    Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. [...] A couple of weeks back I wrote about controversy over the renaming of the South African town of Louis Trichardt.  It seemed obvious to me that a country that had so long seen the majority population trampled under the foot of the white minority ought to have the fairly fundamental right to reclaim the naming rights of the country’s towns, cities, and institutions. Some members of the formerly privileged population disagree. [...]

    2. [...] I have previously discussed the controversy over changing names of municipalities, streets, and the like in South Africa. These debates tend to be so contentious because they operate at the nexus of history, identity, ethnicity, and mythology, a potent brew anywhere, but particularly pungent in post-Apartheid South Africa.  [...]

    Add a comment