, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE ONLY
"CONTESTING THE MASTER NARRATIVE: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF GARY BAINES
ON THE SOWETO UPRISING AND THE POLITICS OF MEMORY"
Answer 1
Introduction
Gary Baines’s article, “The Master Narrative of South Africa’s Liberation Struggle: Remembering
and Forgetting June 16, 1976,” offers a critical examination of how the Soweto uprising has been
commemorated, memorialized, and politically appropriated in post-apartheid South Africa.
Published in the International Journal of African Historical Studies, the article interrogates the
processes by which the memory of June 16, 1976, has been shaped into a foundational myth of the
African National Congress (ANC)-led government. Baines focuses on three interrelated themes: the
apathy of contemporary youth toward the historical significance of the uprising, contestations over
ownership of the event’s memory, and the canonization of Hector Pieterson as a struggle icon.
Through an analysis of visual images, Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) testimonies, the
Hector Pieterson Museum, and Youth Day commemorations, Baines argues that private memories
have been subsumed into a state-sanctioned, triumphalist narrative that serves nation-building
purposes.
The Article’s Account of June 16, 1976, and the Liberation Struggle
Baines presents June 16, 1976, as a pivotal but contested moment in South Africa’s liberation history.
He notes that the student uprising began as a protest against the compulsory use of Afrikaans as a
medium of instruction in black schools, but quickly escalated into a broader revolt against the
apartheid state when police opened fire on demonstrating students in Orlando West, Soweto.¹ The
article emphasizes that the uprising was largely spontaneous and driven by students inspired by
Black Consciousness ideology, rather than by the exiled leadership of the ANC or the Pan Africanist
Congress (PAC).² Baines draws on TRC findings to argue that the liberation movements did not play
a direct military or organizational role in the events of June 16, although they later benefited from
the exodus of thousands of youths who left South Africa for military training.³
The article also highlights how the memory of June 16 has been selectively crafted. While the
uprising marked a turning point that revived a moribund anti-apartheid struggle and drew
international attention to state repression, Baines contends that its complex, messy reality—including
the accidental nature of many participants’ involvement—has been smoothed over in favor of a
heroic narrative. He points out that both Hector Pieterson and Mbuyisa Makhubu, the boy carrying
Pieterson’s body in Sam Nzima’s iconic photograph, were essentially bystanders rather than activists,
yet they have been transformed into symbols of deliberate sacrifice.⁴
1:Gary Baines, “The Master Narrative of South Africa’s Liberation Struggle: Remembering and Forgetting June 16, 1976,” International
Journal of African Historical Studies 39, no. 2 (2006): 283–284.
2:Baines, “Master Narrative,” 292–293.
3:Baines, “Master Narrative,” 293–294, citing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final Report.
4:Baines, “Master Narrative,” 290–291.
"CONTESTING THE MASTER NARRATIVE: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF GARY BAINES
ON THE SOWETO UPRISING AND THE POLITICS OF MEMORY"
Answer 1
Introduction
Gary Baines’s article, “The Master Narrative of South Africa’s Liberation Struggle: Remembering
and Forgetting June 16, 1976,” offers a critical examination of how the Soweto uprising has been
commemorated, memorialized, and politically appropriated in post-apartheid South Africa.
Published in the International Journal of African Historical Studies, the article interrogates the
processes by which the memory of June 16, 1976, has been shaped into a foundational myth of the
African National Congress (ANC)-led government. Baines focuses on three interrelated themes: the
apathy of contemporary youth toward the historical significance of the uprising, contestations over
ownership of the event’s memory, and the canonization of Hector Pieterson as a struggle icon.
Through an analysis of visual images, Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) testimonies, the
Hector Pieterson Museum, and Youth Day commemorations, Baines argues that private memories
have been subsumed into a state-sanctioned, triumphalist narrative that serves nation-building
purposes.
The Article’s Account of June 16, 1976, and the Liberation Struggle
Baines presents June 16, 1976, as a pivotal but contested moment in South Africa’s liberation history.
He notes that the student uprising began as a protest against the compulsory use of Afrikaans as a
medium of instruction in black schools, but quickly escalated into a broader revolt against the
apartheid state when police opened fire on demonstrating students in Orlando West, Soweto.¹ The
article emphasizes that the uprising was largely spontaneous and driven by students inspired by
Black Consciousness ideology, rather than by the exiled leadership of the ANC or the Pan Africanist
Congress (PAC).² Baines draws on TRC findings to argue that the liberation movements did not play
a direct military or organizational role in the events of June 16, although they later benefited from
the exodus of thousands of youths who left South Africa for military training.³
The article also highlights how the memory of June 16 has been selectively crafted. While the
uprising marked a turning point that revived a moribund anti-apartheid struggle and drew
international attention to state repression, Baines contends that its complex, messy reality—including
the accidental nature of many participants’ involvement—has been smoothed over in favor of a
heroic narrative. He points out that both Hector Pieterson and Mbuyisa Makhubu, the boy carrying
Pieterson’s body in Sam Nzima’s iconic photograph, were essentially bystanders rather than activists,
yet they have been transformed into symbols of deliberate sacrifice.⁴
1:Gary Baines, “The Master Narrative of South Africa’s Liberation Struggle: Remembering and Forgetting June 16, 1976,” International
Journal of African Historical Studies 39, no. 2 (2006): 283–284.
2:Baines, “Master Narrative,” 292–293.
3:Baines, “Master Narrative,” 293–294, citing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final Report.
4:Baines, “Master Narrative,” 290–291.
