3.3.5 Proposals in terms of statue or plinth position

access to the statue because of the student card identification and explanation that he was researching for academic purposes.

The critics of the statue say that Kruger is a relic and artefact from the oppressive, racist colonial and apartheid era and should be removed for the city truly to belong to the original inhabitants. On the other hand, defenders argue that Kruger is a pivotal part of the Afrikaner cultural heritage and should be respected and honoured as such. For many people, the statue represents values associated with Afrikanerdom, while for others and represents the inherent and institutionalised racism of the South African society before 1994. The anti-Kruger activists argue that the statue is a painful reminder of centuries of oppression and there is no place in modern South Africa to celebrate a figure central to that history. Historians have also written extensively about his involvement in government corruption and manipulation of the Transvaal1 elections (Du Toit, 2020).

Kruger was also the Afrikaans peoples’ spiritual leader during their bitter war of resistance against British rule, the consequences of which have become a point of reference in Afrikaans peoples’ collective consciousness. In the same war, black South Africans lost any claim to their country. Kruger inevitably became the embodiment and representation of black dispossession, oppression, and racism. As a result, when the Afrikaans peoples’ view the artefact, they may venerate their hero and icon. In contrast, black South Africans are often reminded of the torturous past and their loss of national identity.

3.3.5 Proposals in terms of statue or plinth position

This section presents two proposals that may change the narrative in terms of the historical meaning of the site by relocating the statue or removing the statue.

Consideration A

In light of the numerous sentiments around and perspectives on Paul Kruger (the person and the statue), it is evident that statues tell not so much what the people on the plinths did, as that which the people who put them there want society to believe

1 The Transvaal province in the north of South Africa between 1910 and 1994 (Wikipedia).

and become. Instead of using statues to genuinely honour and commemorate historical figures, governments and politicians can abuse them to advance ideologies or mythologies, as in the case of Kruger.

However, this should not be interpreted as an erasure of this type of Afrikaner heritage and history. Another question that may be asked is: should the statue of Paul Kruger be replaced by another Afrikaner icon who has no controversy surrounding him or her, or is the animosity too deep-seated as it is? Will the Afrikaans people accept anyone other than Kruger?

Consideration A (Figure 3.10) suggests removing the plinth and the statue from the sacred centre of the square and the heart of the city and relocating it to another place within the square. The original position is then left open. The openness of the central section of the city neutralises the claimed identity of the city and may give a sense of belonging and accessibility to anyone, regardless of their gender, political position or contribution, race, or colour.