Hottentot Venus

There was a tribe in South Africa that called itself the KhoiKhoi. Since most of these tribes married within the tribe, each tribe had its own physical attributes. Some were known for their long necks, others were known for their long buttocks- like the KhoiKhoi. The Europeans (who have an annoying habit of assuming that everybody understands English), referred to the KhoiKhoi as the Hottentot. Their large buttocks were quite the urban legend in Europe.
Saatchi, or Sara Baartman as the Europeans called her, was a slave for a Dutch man. He took her all over Europe, putting her on display for a small ticket fee. People came to look at her naked body and her big bottom. Eventually, their curiosity for her buttocks and genitals killed her. Even though she had died, they did not give up their interest in her genitals. Her genitals were cut off and sold to a musuem- another peculiarity.

In her article, Sadiah Qureshi mentions that nobody knows Sara Baartman's real name. I wonder then, why do the historians in the film refer to her as Satchi?
In 1995, South Africa requested France to return her body parts for a proper burial- two centuries after her death. It became a long political battle to the extent that even Nelson Mandela had to intervene and request for the body to be returned. The parts in question: her breasts, buttocks and labia- which the Musee de l'Homme in Paris had on display. Qureshi thinks that the attempt to reclaim her body is a metaphor for black artists to reclaim their image and sexuality.

In the 17th century, colonial representations of the Khoikhoi showed them as the link between human and ape.They were thought to be without religion, savages, barbarians and bestial. People, plants and objects were collected and displayed- as was Sara Baartman. As Qureshi says, Sara "served as both an imperial success and a prized specimen of the 'Hottentot'".
Qureshi then answers my earlier query on Baartman's name. The historians in the film refer to her as Saartjie, not Satchi....Saartjie means little Sara in Dutch. Saartjie's travels are not those of a slave being traded, but are analogous to a live, rare, animal specimen being traded and displayed.

London, back in the day, "provided a host of possibilities: theatres, museums, pleasure gardens, panoramas, circuses, menageries, freak shows and fairs". In 1810, the public could view the "Hottentot Venus" for two shillings at 225 Picadilly. She was displayed there as a rare specimen, not as a human. She had to walk up and down in her cage, while the audience pinched, poked and made faces at her. Such treatment of "living curiousities" was not uncommon in those days. (I can not believe how one person could treat another person like that!)

Thankfully, there were a handful of Europeans who believed in human rights. One of them, "An Englishman", wrote a letter claiming "It was contrary to every principle of morality and good order" to let Baartman's show continue because it was offending to public decency and hinted at slavery. Baartman's owner at the time, Cezar, responded saying that she was not a slave, but participated in the display of her own will. This developed into a court case, which of course, Cezar won. Saartjie remained a curiosity.

However, her court case won her the most fame and attention. As Qureshi writes, "It is Baartman's politicization and not her exhibition that proved unusual". Also, Qureshi notes that Baartman's "status as an imperial spectacle" was not due solely to her status as a black person, nor a black woman- since Europeans were well acquainted with blacks. It was due, largely, to her status as a Khoikhoi woman, which the British had never encountered before.

In 1815, after having been displayed at several venues across Europe, "Baartman spent three days at the Jardin des Plantes under the observation of the professors of the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle". Stemming from this examinatin, illustrations of her alongside mammals were published in a journal. She died later that year, and her body was preserved at the Museum h'Histoire Naturelle.

Qureshi outlines how Cuvier examined Saartjie's body both before and after her death, and how the Europeans were interested in the genitalia of a Khoikhoi woman. Depictions/illustrations made at the time of Khoikhoi woman shown them reclining, with their breats uncovered and legs spread apart to invite examination. Qureshi expresses offense at these illustrations, and I agree with her.

Qureshi, in the latter half of her article, talks about an ehibit called "Two Undiscovered Amerindians Visit", a performance by Coco Fusco. Two "Amerindians" were displayed in a cage while Western audiences looked on. Some paid money to get a glimpse of the male's primitive genitalia, others paid to watch the female dance. Fusco noted that their audiences felt they had to play the role of the colonizer. As Qureshi states, this exhibition brings attention to "the power that an observer possesses to construct the significance of a subject and how location shapes meaning. The lack of self-reflexivity on the part of the audience is partly the consequence of staging the perfomrance in a museum".

So why are Western museum practices so twisted? Why must be make a spectacle out of everything, and assume that we establish the norm? Even today, we view First Nations and Africans as something to preserve behind a museum's walls. Surely, the West has bigger issues to worry about.