In the theme parks of international tourism the artifacts for sale and the dancing and drumming which illustrate Zulu culture are as much the product of the Bantu education policy of the apartheid period as of the continuities of traditional culture" (McLuskie 161).
"Even in cases when particular performances manifested a formal continuity with dance and ritual and other mimetic forms in indigenous culture, the legacy of colonialism, like the legacy of modernization in other cultures, remained in the separation of theatrical events from the functional role of ritual into culture" (McLuskie 163).
"The artifacts of traditional culture are so overlaid with the history of their appropriation, and so implicated in the global art market, that they have become 'neo-traditional'" (McLuskie 164).
Kate McLuskie criticizes the production of uMabatha for sentimentalizing and celebrating the life of the rural native. She insists that these forms of theatre confirm white attitudes and prejudices about South Africans and are “blatantly paternalistic in the long colonial tradition” ( 156). Here, McLuskie is building upon the work of critic Anthony Akerman who claims that it is this characteristic of the play which results in a performance of Black theatre being diluted and marketed for commercial value (McLuskie 156).
However, in the political situation of apartheid there is no simple separation between politics and commerce (McLuskie 156)--and unfortunately, for uMabatha although it did not claim to be a commentary of the lives of contemporary black South Africans, it connection with an all white management company and presentation to a segregated audience inevitably characterized the play as a work of exploitation (McLuskie 157).
Even without analyzing the authenticity of the mimetic forms of dance and ritual in the play Msomi “cannot simply celebrate primitivism or re-enact indigenous cultural forms because the relationship of African artists to contemporary culture has already been deformed by colonialism” (McLuskie 164). In becomes in evitable that South Africans “doing” Shakespeare at the Globe in the 21st century will also in a sense be “doing” Africanness (Distiller 166).
“Shakespeare’s themes--ambition, greed, love, all human traits originate with and belong to the realm of Shakespeare. The actors who enact these emotions through a Zulu performance are simply demonstrating what has become widely codified as Shakespeare’s humanity--not their own. They demonstrate purely the performers (and in a larger context Black South African culture's) ability to mimic “humanity” and “civilization.”
"Msomi’s play gained cultural recognition and it did so by virtue of unexamined assumptions about the authenticity with which it represented its originating culture:
In the first version of the play he attached Zulu dancing to the brand name of Shakespeare to insulate it against the charge of ethic exploitation. He then recognized its potential for revival in the post-apartheid desire for cultural cohesion and turned the new hybrid product into a commercial success” (McLuskie 163)
Msomi was highly aware of the commercial value of uMabatha, and in fact, chose to embrace this facet of his work by telling the Sunday Times:
its all about changing people’s midsets about themselves, about their language. Why should we be ashamed of what we are?”...elsewhere he said: “it dawned on me what we had was something rich and that it needed to be marketed and preserved”
So for Msomi, the ability to market one’s culture on world stage is a means acting in the interest of preserving one's culture and publicly legitimizing cultural worth ( Distiller165).
Is this a good thing?
One of the issues with commerciality and marketability of “Zuluness” and thus “Africanness” is that it allows the play’s American and European audiences to feel as though they are contributing to some type of colonial redress, to a solidified renewal of African pride by supporting the show.
Explanation:
