Am I Black, am I Coloured, am I Indian? An autoethnographic account of a refugee’s everyday encounters with ascribed racialisation in South Africa

Tewolde, Amanuel Isak

doi:10.1080/14725843.2020.1752146

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We use the term "indigenous" to speak collectively of those people who lived in South Africa prior to European colonialism (see Laster Pirtle [2023] and Tewolde [2020]). We use "Black" rather than "African" to acknowledge that all South African groups might consider themselves to be African.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our understanding of the precolonial archaeology of South Africa, Black South Africans are the descendants of the early farming groups who spoke languages from the Bantu-language family, whilst the group that Apartheid classified as “Coloured” South Africans are the descendants of pastoralist and hunter-gatherer people who spoke languages from the KhoeSan-language family (Lander and Russell, 2018) (referred to as Bushman [Ndlovu, 2011b] and collectively as KhoeSan [Hollman, 2014]). We use the term “indigenous” to speak collectively of those people who lived in South Africa prior to European colonialism (see Laster Pirtle [2023] and Tewolde [2020]). We use “Black” rather than “African” to acknowledge that all South African groups might consider themselves to be African.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Decolonising archaeology in South Africa: two decades after the National Heritage Resources Act of 1999

P Reddy,

Russell

2024

Journal of Social Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twenty-four years ago, the National Heritage Resources Act, No. 25 of 1999 (NHRA) was enacted in South Africa. This was a moment of change, when the heritage of those marginalised during the colonial and Apartheid eras would finally be given its rightful place on the national heritage list. There was a sense of optimism amongst politicians that the African past was finally to be recognised in an inclusive and representative future. This was echoed in archaeology, given its central role in uncovering and telling the story of precolonial South Africa. The discipline slowly opened its doors to academics of all ethnic groups and new perspectives were identified. But an examination of the practical consequences and impact of this progressive legislation for transforming officially declared heritage in the past 24 years shows surprisingly little change in the overall body of recognized, listed heritage. Recent studies of transformation in South African archaeology have focussed on institutional transformation; possible transformation of the types and frequency of sites declared as national and provincial heritage sites has not yet been examined. It is this issue which our paper addresses. The paper presents analysis that relies on the South African Heritage Resources Information System (SAHRIS) database covering the period 1936 to mid-2022. Whilst sites associated with European colonialism still predominate, there has been a change in the frequency of types of heritage declared since 1999, with an increase in sites associated with the Black liberation struggle. Yet the list remains very unbalanced, with only a single heritage site connected to the precolonial past of Black South Africans having been declared as a national heritage site since 1999. We discuss and classify the types of heritage declared since 1999 and suggest reasons for the distortion.

show abstract

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%