Cultural heritage vs national heritage

LAZARUS KAIRABEB, SECRETARY-GENERAL NAMA TRADITIONAL LEADERS ASSOCIATION WRITES:

I am compelled to take part in the debate that started with the seeming unilateral use of something considered, in part, to be the property of the culture of the Nama people by the President of the Republic of Namibia, His Excellency Dr. Hage Gaingob, when he used the code name “Operation Hornkranz” for a joint Police and Military force feat against criminals over the festive season.

The operation was launched on 21 December 2018, and the tension created by the use of the “Hornkranz” name did not end with the reported successes that may have been achieved during the festive season in the city where crime is rife. Code name “Operation Hornkranz” conjure up feelings in the local communities that colonial history including cultural heritage affairs of the indigenous Nama groups are deliberately disregarded and undermined by detaching heritage properties from the identity of the particular group and turning this into a rather conflated idea of national heritage, leading to loss of local identity, and at best, raising conceptual questions such as; what precisely historic cultural heritage would mean in Namibia.

Cultural heritage in the mainstream literature is professed to be a broad and nebulous concept. Scholarly interventions, however, often assume an understanding meant to capture the heterogeneity of it by defining it “as something that someone or a collective considers to be worthy of being valued, preserved, catalogued, exhibited, restored, and admired.” Commonplace understanding deriving from the above definition is that culture is a product of human activity consisting, on the whole, of those things that are socially transmitted, which includes, beliefs, practices, objects, symbols, motifs, and experiences comprising tangible and intangible properties.

Heritage on the other hand is taken to mean “the inheritance of something from the past, which in the case of cultural heritage; is culture”, representing, in the teaching of history, the identity of the originator, which also embodies the notion of inheritance and handing on to generations.

'WHO OWNS WHAT?'

Therefore, it seems apparent that the use of the name Hornkranz for this operation, without considering culturally specific rights and restrictions that recognizes the special claims of the particular cultural group; clearly indicates the disenfranchisement of the Nama people whose history is entangled with the site/place Hornkranz.

In his response to questions the Head of Police, Commissioner Ndeitunga among many other things said that the choice of code names for operations is the prerogative of the Police. His choice of language seems ignorant of knowledge of the reigning ethics and moral questions about domestic and global understanding of cultural heritage in contrast to national heritage.

The question really is: Do members of cultural groups have special claims to own or control the products of the cultures to which they belong?

And conversely: Is there something morally wrong with employing cultural products that are distinctive of a culture to which one does not belong?

One can even go further and ask: What is the relationship in Namibia between cultural heritage and group identity?

These questions in reality concerns the distribution of power among cultural groups; more particularly, how people should understand the composition and boundaries of cultural groups – at the backdrop of the role that colonial dynamics have played in establishing current patterns of access to, and control over cultural heritage. Also knowing that cultural heritage is just as much about the present as it is about the future, these questions summon into equation a more direct question about “Who owns what”, which becomes a question of heritage ethics and philosophy?

CULTURAL APPROPRIATION

Commissioner Ndeitunga, instead of cultivating a sense about the point at which cultural heritage may become national heritage, and thereby drawing a line where distinction could be made of the ethical and moral basis of their argument, went on and conflated these two ideas with the claim that Namibians are culturally homogenous and therefore the right to use symbols and objects of history of the Nama peoples’ heritage becomes the prerogative of the Police, or the state. So it seems from the way he reacted.

His views seem to discard the notion of intra-national diversity of cultures in Namibia as a matter of fact. And by so doing, raise another political challenge of multiculturalism, which we cannot escape from, no matter the nationalistic assumptions.

Since it was a state intervention with the involvement of the President recognizing the heritage dimension of the place, community and history, engaging the people to discuss the new value and its effect on the historical value held in the name with this elevation would have been advisable. The act of totally forsaking people’s right to the objects of not only their culture but also of their history is tantamount to cultural appropriation, which is generally understood to be the taking or use of the cultural products of cultural “insiders” by cultural “outsiders”.

Recognizing the heritage dimension of the name “Hornkranz” is to acknowledge its value as consisting, at least in part, in its narrative significance its role in stories that connects the people to the past and contribute a distinctive meaning to the lives of those closely associated to the place. This is because we consider the preservation of cultural inheritance as guided by the preservation of the narrative value as a significant factor and any change to it may invite a discussion to determine the continuity of all that is associated to it.

This view is informed by the assumption that communities view some aspects of the environment as part of cultural inheritance from the ancestors and therefore a good reason to preserve the environment with all that is in it as part of the intergenerational social contract.

My contention therefore is that there is a profound offence of wrongfulness committed by the Police and President, which can be equated to “cultural appropriation” and strikes at the peoples’ core values or sense of self, which morally ought to be impermissible.

I think the right of cultural group members to tolerate or not to tolerate such acts should be seen in the context of its social value and the freedom of expression pretty much in the same tone of that of the Police Commissioner’s contention of police prerogative. Not only that, cultural appropriation is wrong, even if it is considered at the level of cultural development beneficial to aspects of creativity and exchange.

Appropriation of elements of the perceived subordinated culture by a dominant culture without substantive reciprocity is senseless, exploitative and open to debate. Even if one may argue that cultural appropriation increases economic opportunity for the group members, it might still be thought of as a form of mutually advantageous exploitation and therefore sufficient reason to have a prior understanding of the extent to which the appropriation may affect the primary right holders.

HEAR OUR VOICES

Let us therefore not attempt to misrepresent or silence the voices of the marginalized cultural group members but engage in a more moral and sensible discussion of the principles of heritage protection and preservation.

In Namibia, we are right now dealing with the repatriation of all kinds of material heritage including human remains from museums, universities or other institutions to their culture, nation or owner of origin. And what are we doing? Though the repatriation itself and reparation seem uncontroversial, we at least from a moral perspective impair the basis of standard norms of reparative justice, as would apply to any other maliciously removal of items.

I also think the office of the President has a great deal more to offer than the mere reference to the statement by the head of police on this matter. As for Commissioner Ndeitunga, I believe that he speaks for the state, forgetting the inalienability of cultural property from cultural identity.

Or perhaps we do not have ethical foundations to speak from in Namibia. I shall like to engage them on this subject as a matter of serious concern.