It is important to know and understand the historical context of the installation of colonial names in SA to comprehend the fundamental significance of name changes.
The conceptual understanding of our history often enables us to know how past historical events shaped the present socioeconomic and political conditions as well the possibilities of the envisaged future.
In progressive countries, history is used as a fundamental educational instrument in the intentional construction and the systematic development of patriotic identities and national consciousness.
Hence, I often argue that excellent education is not enough if we do not teach young people the essence of who they are.
Today it is easy to reduce the significance of the name changes as a trivial matter because of a lack of understanding of how names such as East London were institutionalised and the price paid by our forebears who found themselves at the coalface of brutal colonial encroachment in SA.
In 1811, governor John Cradock instructed the cold-hearted Scottish officer Colonel John Graham to expel amaXhosa from the Zuurveld in the triangle of the Gamtoos River, Graaff-Reinet and the Fish River.
Graham relished the moment. His intention was clear from his words: “To attack the savages in a way which I hope will leave a lasting impression on their memories” (Jeff Peires, 1981).
He was true to his word, as he subjected amaXhosa women and children to the first British ethnic cleansing in Africa.
One can still hear their silent cries from the valleys and mountains of the Zuurveld.
Cradock’s decision was anchored on the political and religious justification that the land was occupied by savages perceived as subhumans not worthy to own and to occupy the rich and beautiful Zuurveld region.
Hence in the later years, the highly decorated Waterloo veteran Sir Benjamin D’Urban defined amaXhosa as “irreclaimable savages” with no right to own the land.
Therefore, it is crucial to understand that the European conquest of SA and renaming of the places was anchored on the fundamentals of the settler doctrine of ethnic cleansing of irredeemable savages to clear the space for the civilised chosen people.
In January 1848, the venerated Peninsular War veteran, Major-General Harry Smith, praised as the Hero of Aliwal, named the coastal area around Gompo as East London.
In the same year, he built Fort Glamorgan on the mouth of the Buffalo River.
It was named after the Earl of Glamorgan, Robert Fitzhamon, who conquered Glamorgan in Wales in the year 1093.
A settlement near the Orange River was named Smithfield in the same year.
In 1849, Smith named a place in Hewu, Whittlesea in honour of the town of his birth place in Cambridgeshire in England.
In the same year, a place on the range of Intaba zokhahlamba/Drakensburg was named Harrismith, followed by Ladysmith in 1850 at Mnambithi.
What was notable about Smith was the fact that he was intentional in his belligerent pursuance of British colonial interests in SA.
The naming of the African landmarks with the British prominent figures was a political statement to create a permanent psychological presence of the British Empire in SA.
In essence, the naming process was inextricably linked to the colonial political doctrine anchored on the fundamental pillars of:
- Dispossession of the land from Africans;
- Displacement from the land to cut the spiritual and mental connection with the ancestral land,
- Dehumanisation of the dispossessed by erasing the African names, history and culture; and
- Commodification of the conquered subjects by reducing their bodies into commodities of labour and any other form.
It has to be understood that the process of redressing the deeply entrenched complex legacy of colonialism is a long agonising journey coupled with systematic application of multipronged approaches.
The name-change exercise is part of the continuous decolonisation efforts driven by different entities in an attempt to restore the dignity, history and identities of the dispossessed, displaced, dehumanised and commodified people, once defined as irredeemable savages.
The continuous subtle strategies to resist the decolonisation efforts are likely to breed more bitterness and instability and thus casting a doomed future for the unborn generations.
We should not be complicit in the insidious perpetuation of an unjust system of colonialism whose prosperity was built on the blood and sweat of our forebears.
In the light of that, any reasonable objection to the name changes has to be based on rational defensible justification.
If the name change is objected to on the basis of the lamentation of wasteful expenditure, that is probably an expression of shameless arrogance or a demonstration of apparent ignorance.
Analytically, if one strongly believes that name changes will kill tourism, that is tantamount to the intentional perpetuation of the colonial legacy regardless of its horrendous history of ethnic cleansing and deliberate destruction of ancient civilizations.
Lamenting about the loss of material conditions due to name-change processes is a blatant disregard of the deep-seated unimaginable consequences of colonialism.
In retrospect, name change should be understood as a symbolic step of atonement towards retrospective justice and rectification of our distorted history.
If we are serious about living together harmoniously in SA, let us be willing to challenge the compromised psychological state of cognitive dissonance to have clarity of sober minds.
Dr Jongi J Klaas (PhD Cambridge UK)
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.