Nelson Mandela revisiting his cell at Robben Island prison. The image was sold to support his charitable causes. Louise Gubb/Corbis via Getty Images

An identity document, a pair of reading glasses, a hearing aid and a pair of worn shoes. These are just some of Nelson Mandela’s personal items that were due to go on auction on 22 February 2024. A month before the auction was due, the New York-based Guernsey’s auction house put a notice on its website that it was suspending the sales. No explanation was given.

The initial news of the auction caused outrage. South African government officials, commentators on South African social media, and even members of the family of South Africa’s late former president expressed shocked disbelief.

In December 2021 the auction published an auction catalogue – subsequently removed on 30 January 2024 – promoting many personal items, as well as the key to Mandela’s cell on Robben Island, where he was imprisoned for 18 years for his opposition to apartheid. Makaziwe Mandela, Mandela’s daughter, who consigned the items for auction, stated that proceeds from the sale would go towards the building of a memorial garden in Qunu, the rural settlement where he was born.

On 23 December 2021, the UK Daily Mail published a sensational news item reporting that the key was expected to fetch £1 million (US1.27 million).

The South African Heritage Resources Agency, which coordinates the identification and management of national heritage, learned of the auction through the report. It contacted the auction house, ordering it to stop the auction immediately. It claimed that the items were heritage objects and that they had been exported from South Africa without the relevant permits.

Makaziwe Mandela responded, arguing that the items were her private possessions.

The South African Heritage Resources Agency, the Robben Island Museum and the Department of Sports, Arts and Culture took the case to the Pretoria High Court. The court found that the items weren’t heritage objects because, among other things, the language that describes a “heritage object” that the state was arguing for was too broad.

Heritage is always contested. The state, the nation, private individuals and the market often have competing stakes in making claims to – and about – the cultural value that heritage holds. At times courts are enlisted to mediate such disputes.

Many South Africans have a strong personal relationship with Mandela. The outrage directed against the proposed auction can be traced to the personal and intimate nature of the items. And the fact that their sale feels like transgressing a moral boundary of familial respect.

In addition, given his political stature at home and globally, there are many who feel the auction crossed a cultural boundary. The items being put on the block are special for the nation and are tied to the post-apartheid story of the struggle for freedom and democracy.

This value is intuitively understood as heritage.

As a scholar of the cultural construction of heritage and contested public culture, I find this dispute a fascinating illustration of the shifting dynamics of heritage adjudication after 30 years of democracy. Where once heritage was about reconciliation and nation building, it is ever more about struggles over ownership, private property, cultural value and economic gain.

Judgment

The Pretoria High Court handed down its judgment on the basis of the facts brought before it.

In its arguments before the court the South African Heritage Resources Agency quoted sections of, among others, the National Heritage Resources Act, which protects heritage objects, or things deemed as such on the basis of their

association with political processes, events and figures and leaders in South Africa.

But in its judgment, the court found that definition the state wanted for heritage status was

so overbroad that just about anything that President Mandela touched or is associated with, or related to him, can be considered a heritage object.

It asked how these items could be termed heritage items while the “tens of hundreds of Springbok Rugby jerseys or ruling party attire autographed by Nelson Mandela on the campaign trail” were not.

The justices also inferred that items should have extraordinary qualities of great national significance for them to be registered as heritage objects. The Mandela items, many of which were as ordinary as reading glasses and his hearing aids, did not seem to meet that criterion.

Yet, there is a precedent for such use, such as Mandela’s red Mercedes displayed at the Apartheid Museum. Objects telling meaningful stories have also been curated and displayed at the museum marking the place at which Nelson Mandela was once captured.

Nevertheless, it was for these reasons that the items were not declared heritage objects.

Contested terrain

Concern about the heritage value of the items is well founded. By definition it raises questions about the South African Heritage Resources Agency and its role as a custodian of national heritage.

Possession comes with all kinds of responsibilities of care and public education. In making its case, the agency did not present a custodial plan including an assessment of the items, the museums to which they would go once they were repatriated and the exhibitions and educational projects they would potentially be used for.

There was also no mention of how costs for this curatorial custodianship would be carried.

Without any of this the question arises: if we believe that these objects do belong to the nation under the South African Heritage Resources Agency’s care, what benchmarks can be used to assess its ability to effectively manage and publicise Nelson Mandela’s legacy?

On the other hand, it’s not entirely clear that these items should be available for private sale either, even if it is to contribute to the social good of memorialisation. Could they not have been better used as displays in the memorial garden in Qunu, and then create a sustainable heritage tourism attraction, for example?

After Mandela’s death in 2013, the organisations responsible for managing his legacy continued to endorse commercial ventures of a charitable kind or with some form of social good.

The case shows how the dynamics of struggle and dispute have shifted in ways that lean more towards narratives that privilege the idea of heritage as private property linked to public good. No more is the struggle so much about transformation of the heritage landscape.

This trend can be traced back to Nelson Mandela’s own participation in the marketing of his legacy for charitable ventures. During his life he used his legacy for charitable causes, endorsing products, producing artworks and donating personal items for a variety of charitable ventures.

This change is also connected to the attrition of the state’s authority to articulate persuasive claims over things that belong to the nation. And its unclear role in promoting them for deepening the national story. For if these objects were of great national significance then surely the South African Heritage Resources Agency would have registered and classified them a long time ago. And they would be put to good use in commemorative projects befitting Nelson Mandela’s legacy in Qunu and beyond.

Duane Jethro, Lecturer Department of African Studies and Linguistics, University of Cape Town

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Warren Clarke, University of Manitoba

Youth employment in Canada continues to be a concern. Young people between the ages of 15 and 30 are less likely to find and sustain employment compared to an older population of Canadians.

According to Statistics Canada, around 11 per cent of youth aged 15-24 are unemployed. Among young Black Canadians that number is around 17.5 per cent.

Black people in Canada continue experiencing oppression and dehumanization because of how their skin colour is viewed and represented.

Impoverished Black male youth in particular encounter racism, ageism, classism and gender biases when looking for work. These are stereotypes which encourage many Canadian employers to view them as not good for business and unemployable.

Intersecting oppressions

As a sociocultural anthropologist who is dedicated to uncovering the nuances in Black youth un(der)employment, I have found that impoverished Black youths’ inability to find employment is due to intersectional oppressions such as ageism and classism, which is also tied to their Blackness.

The challenges they face vary among different Canadian cities. In my doctoral study about impoverished Black male youth in Montréal, Ottawa and Toronto, I found these youth are denied employment opportunities for multifaceted reasons. These include discrimination based on a person’s address, age, classism and gender biases — particularly about the negative stereotypical ideas that surround Black manhood.

The sociological study focused on Black male youth between the ages of 15 to 29 who live in low income areas between Montréal, Toronto and Ottawa. The qualitative study gathered data from 21 young Black men through semi-structured interviews and focus groups.

Political philosopher Frantz Fanon warned us of the dangers of recognizing Black people’s experiences as one. Black people have differences that contribute to their humanness, which the colonizer has denied.

Similarly, when we presume all youth have the same experiences, we fail to take diversity seriously and may be falsely interpreting the lived experiences of many youth.

There was never one reason, such as anti-Black racism, which was the cause of employment barriers among these young people. The reality is these youth experience overlapping discrimination that are tied to anti-Black racism, such as classism, which varied based on different encounters with various employers.

My study found that impoverished Black male youth are tied to a socially manufactured hierarchical system that considers race, gender, sexuality, ability, age, social class and education. Unfortunately, employers excluded them because of the many intersections that make up their identities.

Although the Canadian government recognizes Black youth face barriers to employment, few politicians recognize that more needs to be done to create inclusivity in the workplace. The lived experiences of impoverished Black male youth and their ability to access employment are not the same nationwide.

Secularism laws impact opportunities

My study also found that many Black male youth in Montréal are also at the mercy of Québec’s secularism law. Black male youth in the city must deal with classism and constantly being tied to the unworthy idea that they do not serve many employees’ needs. This is based on the stereotypical ideas of what their Black masculinity represents.

Some of these young people adorn religious clothing, which has complicated their job-seeking strategies. Many young Black men living in the province face discrimination based on their religious values and their clothing or attire was a reason they were overlooked for employment.

These secularism laws are an added issue for impoverished Black male youth seeking employment, as many of them do not feel a sense of belonging, and are constantly faced with intersecting social oppressions where they are overlooked for employment opportunities.

We must realize that some laws and policies may be suitable for some Canadians. But in an effort to create legislation, there is a disregard for the social concerns of those who have been othered. Creating laws without considering them adds to a sense that they do not belong in this country.

Thinking through Black masculinity

For years, Black Canadian scholars such as Carl James, Tamari Kitossa and myself have discussed Black masculinities in Canada and how Black men are seen as dangerous, untrustworthy men undeserving of a sense of belonging in the white settler nation-state.

These historical narratives continue to inform our present day society, which has complicated how impoverished young Black men seek and obtain employment. Failing to recognize these tensions among young Black men is distancing ourselves from the lived experiences rooted in history, which are playing out in our contemporary moments.

The young Black men I spoke to courageously shared what it means to seek employment while having to negotiate your right to be treated fairly. When these young men do eventually obtain employment, they are often trapped in low-paying, menial labour positions reflective of unfair stereotypes about Black masculinity.

This type of work degrades their humanity and selfhood. The dehumanization faced by these youth when they attempt to seek employment demonstrates how they are othered not solely by their race.

For there to be equitable hiring practices, governments and employers must understand anti-Black racism in light of the intertwined forms of discrimination that often accompany it.

Homogenizing the lived experiences of Black youth can cause harm and promote misconceptions about their lived experiences. I urge people to refrain from thinking about racialized people based on their race alone. Instead, we should intentionally focus on the individuality of people. We must practice cultural competency which invites us to appreciate people and their different lived experiences.

Warren Clarke, Assistant Professor, Anthropology, University of Manitoba

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.