The political significance of the media coverage of District Six is approached in the following way: the issue is approached theoretically by posing the question of the general political significance of news as a communicative form. This question is resolved by an examination of the complicated relationship between the tradition of political thought and the development of modem political forms, specifically the issue of the importance of communication in modern political forms. This is explored by considering the problem of the political outlined by Heller. Arendt reconceptua1izes the problem in terms of political judgement, which is discussed in relation to postmodernism and Wittgenstein's philosophy of language, to establish a new conceptualization of political judgement based on Arendt's view of narrative and Benjamin's writing on history. This conceptualization is used to formulated a notion of the general political significance of news, which is a form of political judgement related to a specific political culture. On this basis the media material is analysed in terms of two processes: the representation of District Six in the liberal media, and the representation of the political process surrounding its racial zoning and demolition. It is concluded that the media coverage of Distract Six during this period is characterized by a political culture termed the politics of the ordinary based on a reification of 'Europe' as part of a ' colonial attitude', and the idealization of specific urban forms, with a special relationship to urban planning. Thus the political significance of the media coverage resides in the perpetuation of this political culture, representative of the politics of the white English-speaking middle class, in terms of which an authentic urban politics is not conceivable. Additional conclusions are also drawn concerning the relationship between this political culture and the politics of Apartheid.

Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master of Technology: Tourism and Hospitality Management in the Faculty of Business and Management Sciences at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology / This study is aimed at determining whether the potential exists for further developing cultural and heritage tourism activities in the redeveloping District Six. A rich and diverse cultural heritage provides the basis from which the study examines whether the implementation of a cultural heritage tourism plan in the redeveloping area, is appropriate, will help address issues of restitution and ultimately contribute to the country’s cultural heritage tourism assets. Currently no formal tourism plan for District Six exists. A historical study provides an assessment of the areas’ cultural heritage assets, manifested in politics, music and dance, art, literature, and architecture. A search of existing cultural and heritage tourism literature was conducted in order to gain insight into the descriptive, theoretical and conceptual research questions identified. Relevant development policies and frameworks impacting and supporting potential tourism development in the area were examined. These include the DFD6 (2011) and the National Heritage Tourism Strategy (2012). Creative tourism was further examined as a tool to augment the tourism product and positively contribute to cultural regeneration. Business and functional linkages to assist the integration of District Six tourism into the broader economy were then identified. A comparative analysis of the introduction of a cultural heritage tourism plan in Genadendal is made. This area experienced similar socio- political and historical conditions as District Six. Thus, parallels of the potential challenges were drawn and opportunities identified. A theoretical model for cultural heritage tourism in District Six is then presented by identifying and explaining elements of model theory, discussing models applicable to the research area and adapting a normative framework for cultural heritage tourism on the Cape Flats. The model recommends solutions to problems such as a lack of capacity and skills, funding and investment, public participation and stakeholder engagement. Furthermore, an empirical survey in the form of in-depth interviews was administered to seventeen relevant academics, heritage and tourism practitioners, resident representatives and development consultants. The methodology included extracting qualitative data through transcribing interviews and thematically presenting and analysing the data. Finally, a list of recommendations is provided.

Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2002. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: District Six originated in the eighteen fifties on neighbouring wine farms close to Cape Town's city centre. The first inhabitants were Europeans, but were later joined by free slaves. By 1849 the total number of inhabitants was 2943 and as a municipal area became known as the sixth district of Cape Town. Over the years District Six developed an own unique cosmopolitan character and despite a stigma as a backward residential area District Six developed as a multiracial community with its own vibrant spirit. By 1966 there were 3700 properties of which 56% were owned by Whites, 26% by Coloureds and 18% by Indians. In the same year the area had 21 schools and 17 places of worship. One of the main causes of physical deterioration was overpopulation. The occupancy figure by the 1850's was approximately 2,5 persons per habitable room. Overcrowding led to subletting of even the smallest rooms and resulted in gross exploitation of tenants, horrific crime and moral decay, all of which contributed to the slum status of the area. In 1962 the City of Cape Town devised a pilot plan for the rehabilitation of the area, but this plan was never implemented. Years of neglect of municipal services worsened the degredation of many historic buildings as well as decent living conditions for its residents. In 1962 the Group Areas Board recommended that District Six be declared a Coloured Group Area. The N.P. government rejected this recommendation and on 11 February 1966 through Proclamation 43, declared 94 hectares of the traditional District Six as an area for White occupation. Between 1965 and 1975 the government froze all property transactions in District Six to enable them to plan the redevelopment of the area. The state made financial offers to property owners, but only 10% accepted these. The majority declined these and blamed this on inflexible property valuations of the state. By 1980 the state had spent R25 million on the acquisition of properties in District Six. Government demolition of structures took place between 1968 and 1982 and resulted in the flattenning of most buildings except for a few churches. Expropriated Coloured and Indian residents were removed to the newly created residential areas on the Cape Flats. Although some previous residents of District Six were happy with their accommodation most objected to the high bond repayments on their new homes, higher transport cost to work and the breakdown of existing communities. The biggest opposition to the declaration of District Six as an area for White occupation came from local groups, namely: The Friends of District Six and the District Six Residents', Rent and Ratepayers Association (RRR). Opposition political parties and the press used the physical and mental suffering of the residents to challenge the government. The redevelopment of District Six was characterised by continous changes to proposed plans. In 1964 the government appointed the Niemand Committee to investigate the replanning and redevelopment of District Six. In 1970 a master plan for redevelopment was recommended . In 1974 the first properties were sold to white people by the government. In 1975 the neighbouring Walmer Estate was declared a Coloured Group Area and three years later District Six was renamed as Zonnebloem. In 1979 parts of the neighbouring Woodstock and Salt River were declared Coloured Group Areas. In 1982 the Presidents Council recommended that part of District Six be returned to the Coloured community, but the government rejected this and in October 1982 year the first whites settled in District Six. The following year a part of District Six was declared Coloured area. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Distrik Ses het in die vyftigerjare van die negentiende eeu op aanliggende wynplase van Kaapstad ontstaan. Aanvanklik het Blankes van verskillende nasionaliteite daar gevestig en later het vrygestelde slawe die inwonertal laat toeneem. Teen 1849 was die inwonertal ongeveer 2943 en in 1867 het die gebied bekend geword as die sesde distrik van Kaapstad . Distrik Ses het n eiesoortige en unieke kosmopolitiese karakter ontwikkel. Ten spyte van n stigma van agterlikheid het die gebied n borrelende en veelrassige gemeenskap gehad. In 1966 was daar ongeveer 3700 eiendomme in Distrik Ses waarvan 56% aan Blankes, 26% aan Kleurlinge en 18% aan Indiers behoort het. Teen 1966 was daar 21 skole en sewentien plekke van godsdienstige aanbidding in die gebied. Oorbevolking was een van die grootste oorsake van verval in die gebied. In die vyftigerjare was die besettingsyfer van geboue ongeveer 2,5 persone per bewoonbare vertrek. Die gevolg was onderverhuring, gruwelike uitbuiting van huurders, misdaad en sedelike verval wat aan die gebied n slumstatus besorg het. Jarelange verwaarlosing van munisipale dienste het tot vervaI van gebouestrukture en Iewenstoestande gelei. Die stadsraad se loodsplan vir opruiming in 1962 is nooit geimplementeer nie. Die Groepsgebiederaad het in 1962 aanbeveel dat die gebied as n Kleurling-groepsgebied verklaar moes word. Ten spyte van die aanbeveling is 94 hektaar van die tradisionele Distrik Ses op 11 Februarie 1966 volgens Proklamasie 43 van 1966 as n Blanke Groepsgebied verklaar. Die regering het vanaf 1965 tot 1975 aile eiendomstransaksies in Distrik Ses gevries om sodoende die herontwikkeling van die gebied te beplan. Ongeveer 10% van die eienaars het die staat se aanbod vir hul eiendom aanvaar. Die meeste het egter beswaar gemaak teen die staat se onbuigsame skattings. Teen 1980 het die staat R25 miljoen bestee aan die verkryging Slopingswerk in Distrik Ses het tussen 1968 en 1982 plaasgevind. Byna aIle geboue is gesloop en slegs enkele kerke is behou. Inwoners is na verskeie woonbuurte op die Kaapse Vlakte verskuif Alhoewel sommige vorige inwoners van Distrik Ses tevrede was met hulle nuwe woonplekke was die meeste ontevrede oor die hoe verbandkoste van nuwe wonings, hoer reiskoste en die verbrokkeling van gemeenskappe. Die grootste opposisie teen die Blankverklaring van Distrik Ses was The Friends of District Six en die District Six Residents', Rent and Ratepayers' Association (RRR). Opposisiepolitieke partye en die pers het die regering se rassebeleid aangeval deur te konsentreer op die ontberinge van die inwoners. Die herontwikkeling van Distrik Ses is gekenmerk deur voortdurende verandering. In 1964 is die Niemand-komitee aangestel om die herbeplanning en herontwikkeling van Distrik Ses te ondersoek. In 1970 is n meesterplan vir die ontwikkeling van Distrik Ses aanbeveel. In Julie 1974 het die regering die eerste eiendom in Distrik Ses aan Blankes verkoop. In 1975 is die aangrensende Walmer Estate tot Kleurlinggroepsgebied verklaar. Distrik Ses is in 1978 herdoop en R9 rniljoen is bewillig vir die rehabilitasieskema. In 1979 is dele van die aangrensende Woodstock en Soutrivier tot Kleurlinggroepsgebiede verklaar. In 1980 is ri gewysigde plan vir die ontwikkeling van Distrik Ses voorgele. In 1981 het die regering die Presidentsraad se aanbeveling dat n gedeelte van Distrik Ses aan die Kleurlinggemeenskap teruggegee moes word, verwerp. In Oktober 1982 het die eerste blankes in Distrik Ses gevestig. In 1983 is n gedeelte van Distrik Ses as Kleurlinggebied verklaar.