[ad_1]
The annual Human Rights Day holiday in South Africa in late March commemorates the Sharpeville massacre, when police opened fire on a crowd of unarmed black protesters outside the Sharpeville police station on March 21, 1960. About 69 people were killed and 180 injured, many shot in the back as they fled the scene.
The protest, led by the Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania, was against the hated identification document, known as “ dompas (Stupid Pass), which the apartheid regime forced blacks to wear and who controlled their movements.
After the first democratic elections in 1994, President Mandela proclaimed March 21 a holiday to remember the gross human rights violations of apartheid symbolized by the massacre of 1960.
He made another important symbolic gesture: he chose Sharpeville, about 70 km south of Johannesburg, as the site where he signed the country’s constitution on December 10, 1996.
Sadly, human rights abuses continue in democratic South Africa 27 years after the end of apartheid. The echoes of Sharpeville remain evident, especially in the way the police behave towards South Africans.
In this article, we draw on survey data to profile awareness of the Sharpeville massacre and views on the general importance of remembering a painful past.
We believe this is important because the way people understand the past is likely to have a clear bearing on the levels of support for a social pact and associated policies to address the challenges facing the country. At the top of the list are poverty, inequality and unemployment.
Who remembers what
To explore patterns of collective memory in the country, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council has designed questions to be included in its annual cycle of the South African Social Attitudes Survey. The survey, conducted between March 2020 and February 2021, included 2,844 respondents over the age of 15.
The results suggest that basic knowledge of key historical events in the country is low. Nonetheless, interviewees recognized the importance of remembering the past.
The survey asked respondents: “How familiar are you with the following historical events?” Sharpeville Massacre 1960 ”. Two-fifths (39%) had never heard of this event before (Figure 1). Another 58% said they had heard of it, of which 39% knew little or not at all. Only 19% knew enough to describe it to a friend. Figure 1: Level of knowledge of the Sharpeville massacre (1960) (%) Source: HSRC South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS), Round 17 (2020/21)
Many will be shocked by the limited public knowledge of a key event in modern South Africa’s history. To get some perspective, we compared the findings on knowledge of the Sharpeville massacre to knowledge of the 1955 Freedom Charter and the 1976 Soweto uprising.
The Freedom Charter is the declaration of the fundamental principles which guided the African National Congress and the allied organizations in the struggle against apartheid, after its adoption on June 26, 1955 at the “People’s Congress” in Kliptown, Johannesburg. The 1976 Soweto uprising was sparked by the introduction of Afrikaans as the language of instruction for certain subjects for African high school students that year. The marching students were greeted by armed police, who opened fire on them, killing several. This provoked national resistance for several months thereafter.
In the survey, knowledge of the Freedom Charter was similar to that of the Sharpeville massacre, with 57% having heard of it and 40% not. Basic knowledge of the 1976 Soweto Youth Uprising was higher at 71%, with 27% saying they were unaware.
In all three cases, the proportion of respondents who were confident that they could describe these historical events to someone else varied only between 18% and 29%.
These results suggest that the levels of knowledge about specific events remain quite low. Source: HSRC South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS), Round 17 (2020/21)
Differences
Another striking finding was the wide variation in awareness levels. A strong generational difference in awareness of the Sharpeville massacre is evident, with 60% of 16-24 year olds never hearing of this important event.
There was also a strong class gradient. For example, poor and rural adults had lower levels of awareness. Source: HSRC South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS), Round 17 (2020/21)
The influence of education has been particularly pronounced in the formation of consciousness. The more educated a person is, the more likely they are to know about the Sharpeville massacre.
Why is this important
When asked, “In your opinion, how important or unimportant are historical events such as the Sharpeville Massacre and the Freedom Charter for people living in South Africa today?” 74% responded that it was “very” or “somewhat” important. Only 14% said remembering the past was “not very” or “not at all” important, while 12% were unsure.
This view is common to a large number of the population, regardless of personal socio-economic and demographic characteristics. Across a range of variables, the share of respondents believing in the importance of historical events does not fall below 60% and goes up to around 85%.
Those who were more familiar with events such as the Sharpeville massacre showed a greater sense of the importance of collective memory than those who were unaware of it.
The way in which Germany approached its traumatic Nazi history offers a good illustration of how a society can take its past into account. The country is recognized as having developed an acute historical sensitivity, preserving an understanding of the past through sustained efforts to educate and inform.
Let’s not forget it
The low level of familiarity with key historical events indicates that there are serious gaps in the development of national collective memory in South Africa.
A national collective memory is crucial for the realization of a national identity, because identities are closely linked to the common memories, including the values, that a group holds. In the case of South Africa, a collective national identity would go a long way in building the social pact necessary to meet the many challenges facing the country.
Perhaps South Africa could turn to Guatemala. An attempt was made to use education to promote national unity in Guatemala when a peace accord was signed in 1996 at the end of the violent conflict in that country. The country has turned to human rights education in an effort to enhance the diversity of its people and a culture of peace.
The rights of children, women and indigenous peoples were central concerns. Unlike South Africa, Guatemala has not included the history of the conflict in its national history curriculum. But, like South Africa, there has been no development of a collective memory based on history that emphasizes historical events that can foster national unity.
The results of our survey show that more needs to be done to ensure that the public is well informed about key events in South African history and their relevance to contemporary issues.
This must in part include an examination of the place of history in school and university curricula, and the recognition of the need to invest more in civic and democratic education. Countries like the United States are investing in civic education and learning as a way to tackle the difficult histories and growing challenges of democracy. Perhaps it is time to put this more firmly on South Africa’s agenda.
Benjamin Roberts receives funding from various government departments, non-government organizations and granting institutions for activities associated with the annual implementation of the South Africa Social Attitudes Survey.
[email protected] is affiliated with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
Jare Struwig receives funding from receives funding from various government departments, non-government organizations and granting institutions for activities associated with the annual implementation of the Social Attitudes Survey in South Africa
Steven Gordon is affiliated with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. as a senior research specialist. It has received funding from a number of sources including government, research councils and non-governmental organizations.
By Benjamin Roberts, Research Director: State of Development, Capacity and Ethics Research Division (DCES), and South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS) Coordinator, Research Council in human sciences and
Gregory Houston, Chief Research Specialist, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Jare Struwig, Director of Research, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and
Steven Gordon, Senior Research Specialist, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Source link
