IMPRESSIONS
AFTER THE SYMPOSIUM OF 13-14 OCTOBER 2006 PRESENRED BY THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION RE
THE LEGACY OF THE GREAT TREK AND THE
1.
At
the end of such an intense symposium, it is difficult and even dangerous to try
to summarize and interpret it and to pretend that there was general consensus
on all aspects. The complete papers will
therefore be made available in time.
2. The symposium was nevertheless regarded as extremely timely and
successful. Dr W. Serote (Freedom Park Trust), Mr P. Buthulezi (SAHRA) and Prof
L. Mathenjwa KZN-HRA) unfortunately withdrew at a very late stage and the latter two also did not make
their papers available for presentation on their behalf. Their presence and participation would have
contributed further to the legitimacy and relevance of the symposium. Exchange of thoughts is important as
differences can be noted, debated and where necessary the mutual latching onto
myths and fallacies may be pointed out.
3. Given the abovementioned qualifications, it can nevertheless be said
that reasonable consensus was
reached on the following:
3.1
We are a diverse country
and should therefore accept that a
variety of interpretations and perspectives of our history exist.
3.2
There must be scope in the historiography for differences and different perspectives,
provided that they measure up to the historical method. New times bring about
new questions about the past, which is fine, but it should not condemn nor try to
replace the past as historiography then becomes moral persecution of the past.
We must nevertheless be careful that persons with own agendas do not try to reconstruct history for their own gain and that exaggerated,
unfounded affirmative views do not result in even greater distortions and
untruths.
3.3
While we have to confirm
the existing factual base, we must accept that the existing paradigms must be evaluated against new facts and
perspectives and that it should be part of an ongoing process. In this process the Afrikaner should ask
himself whether the 1938 interpretation is still adhered to or whether a
paradigm shift should be made at the beginning of the 21st century,
to adapt the Afrikaner's position and to accommodate a variety of points of
view, also amongst the Afrikaners themselves.
In writing the history of the Great Trek, justice should be done to all
groups and the spirit of co-operation found in Piet Retief’s Manifesto deserves
renewed attention. In the process of reconciliation, it is an important
document.
3.4
Events must be judged in the context of their time. It is unrealistic and unfair to judge an
event which took place more than 170 years ago, using modern norms (i.e. with
regards to human rights) in isolation and outside context. It should
nevertheless be attempted to contextualise
these events in the present, to be able to make a meaningful projection
of the way forward, in which the upcoming generations must play a decisive
role.
3.5
In reviewing the events around the Battle of Blood River / Ncome, we
must accept that there are both objective
(factual) and subjective (perceptual
and faith-based) components
present. While the first can be proven by means of scientific research, the question
of Divine intervention is accepted on
religious grounds but can hardly
be proven on human grounds or forced onto anybody who differ from it and
do not want to or cannot associate with it. On the other hand, it is the right
of those who want to practice and associate with it on religious grounds, to continue
doing so.
3.6
Apart from the matter of possible
Divine intervention, it is also possible to explain the outcome of the Battle
of Blood River / Ncome in normal norms
of war. These include the choice of the battlefield, the use of superior weapons, -fire-power and -mobility,
the level of psychological preparation, -attitude, -discipline, -and patience of the opposing forces and the
effect of the climate etc.
3.7
While the Dingane- and
Covenant festivals were often used and misused
for purposes other than the commemoration of the Covenant through the
years, we must now and in the future guard against repeating the mistakes of the past.
3.8
Voluntary participation in nation building and
reconciliation activities, is reconcilable with the spirit of the
commemoration of 16 December as a Sabbath, as long as it is not misused for political
and ideological purposes. Should the latter occur, it would have exactly the
opposite effect.
3.9
It is unrealistic to expect people to
spontaneously and enthusiastically participate in nation building and
reconciliation events, which they find foreign to their culture, one day in a year, while for the rest
of the year they increasingly perceive themselves becoming victims of decisions
and circumstances that have exactly the opposite effect. Constructive nation
building and reconciliation must nevertheless be pursued, in the interest
of the upcoming generations who have to
go forward together.
3.10 The role and potential
contribution of the youth in this regard, must not be under estimated.
If we do not cherish our history and our heritage and present it to them in a
digestible, modern way, we cannot expect them to be part of it with conviction
and enthusiasm.
3.11 It was not possible to
arrive at any final conclusion
as we are dealing with a continuous and
dynamic process which will have to be subjected to further reflection
and dialogue. The symposium therefore
represents a very important step forward, but the final word has not been
spoken.