Contested Heritage(s) – The Case(s) of the Battle of Blood River (December 16th, 1838), Dundee and Nquthu, South Africa

van der Merwe Clinton David
{"title":"Contested Heritage(s) – The Case(s) of the Battle of Blood River (December 16th, 1838), Dundee and Nquthu, South Africa","authors":"van der Merwe Clinton David","doi":"10.15170/mg.2024.19.02.07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Battlefield tourism is a well-established niche in cultural and heritage tourism the world over. This paper explores the contested nature of a specific battlefield in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, where two separate museums exist to memorialise the same event, but from two perspectives. The Battle of Blood River (December 16th, 1838) remains a contested event in history books, portrayed from Afrikaner and AmaZulu points of view at the Blood River Heritage Site and Ncome Museum, respectively. People interested in visiting battlefields are slowly dying out, and if South Africa wants to take advantage of growing Battlefield Tourism in the future for surviving generations of those involved in these battles, a new approach will be necessary to sustain and develop this niche of cultural and heritage tourism in the country. This paper uses netnography to analyse the internet footprint of this historical event through the museums’ websites. The paper argues that a more balanced and two-sided perspective should be given at both museums to grow and develop the interest in battlefield tourism across South Africa and encourage mutual visitorship to both museums on the same battlefield site.","PeriodicalId":489186,"journal":{"name":"Modern geográfia","volume":"86 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern geográfia","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15170/mg.2024.19.02.07","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Battlefield tourism is a well-established niche in cultural and heritage tourism the world over. This paper explores the contested nature of a specific battlefield in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, where two separate museums exist to memorialise the same event, but from two perspectives. The Battle of Blood River (December 16th, 1838) remains a contested event in history books, portrayed from Afrikaner and AmaZulu points of view at the Blood River Heritage Site and Ncome Museum, respectively. People interested in visiting battlefields are slowly dying out, and if South Africa wants to take advantage of growing Battlefield Tourism in the future for surviving generations of those involved in these battles, a new approach will be necessary to sustain and develop this niche of cultural and heritage tourism in the country. This paper uses netnography to analyse the internet footprint of this historical event through the museums’ websites. The paper argues that a more balanced and two-sided perspective should be given at both museums to grow and develop the interest in battlefield tourism across South Africa and encourage mutual visitorship to both museums on the same battlefield site.
有争议的遗产--血河战役(1838 年 12 月 16 日)案例,南非邓迪和恩库特胡
战场旅游是世界文化和遗产旅游中一个成熟的细分市场。本文探讨了南非夸祖鲁-纳塔尔省一个特定战场的争议性质,那里有两个不同的博物馆,从两个角度纪念同一事件。血河战役(1838 年 12 月 16 日)在历史书中仍然是一个有争议的事件,血河遗产地和 Ncome 博物馆分别从非洲裔和阿马祖鲁人的角度对其进行了描述。对参观战场感兴趣的人正在慢慢减少,如果南非想在未来利用战场旅游的增长为参与这些战役的幸存者服务,就必须采取新的方法来维持和发展南非的这一文化和遗产旅游细分市场。本文利用网络分析法,通过博物馆网站分析了这一历史事件在互联网上的足迹。本文认为,两家博物馆应采取更加平衡和双面的视角,以提高和发展南非各地对战场旅游的兴趣,并鼓励在同一战场遗址上的两家博物馆相互接待游客。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信