Venus Noire - The Story of Sarah Baartman

Headlining Act

 

Can you imagine being so different from others that they began to define you as a "new species"? This way of thinking was Sarah Baartman's life. What is so fascinating about the word difference is that in order for something to be classified as not similar or unlike something else, there most be a standard. By standard I mean there most be an ideal in which one is comparing something to. What or who was this ideal standard that Sarah Baartman was being compared to?

As scientist began to analyze Baartman’s naked body her entire being astonished them. Her large breast, thighs, buttocks, vagina, etc. were all “different” than the White female naked bodies they were use to seeing.  Because to the scientist this woman body was so strange, they finally came to their own conclusion that she could not possibly be a human but some animalistic type of creature. Studied vigorously by scientist, she was often described as the “missing link” between humans and apes. Scientist studied her shape of her skull, her genital, and the flow of her menstrual cycle. To make matters worse, Baartman was put into acts and circuses being made to dance naked and have on-lookers glare at her body as if she was an alien. And not only were spectators allowed to look at her body but even touch her buttocks and genitals as if it was a type of game to see who was the bravest in the audience. How does one possibly have dignity while those that consider themselves superior point and laugh?

I could not imagine all the thoughts that might have been going in Sarah Baartman’s mind during these moments on and off stage. I think reading Anne- Fausto Sterling’s articles entitled Gender, Race, and Nation made me think of Social Darwinism as nothing but a study of differences. However not just studying differences in a good way, but a classification of differences in a manner and underlining hatred for that, that is not “normal.”

Overall I think the story of Sarah Baartman tells us about the social relations of a particular historical time. I think that it tells that because of a group claiming to be superior everything that was done or appeared outside of that cultural norm was seen as something that was foreign. It is also telling that those apart of the superior group deemed their way of life as the only way and if another group of individuals exhibit a different way of viewing the world then that group must not be barbaric. To explain what I am trying to express and make sure it makes more sense, I will explain in a brief example. It is like telling two children to solve a division problem in math and to show their work. If I see that both children have answered the problem correctly, yet one child did a different method than the method that I know, and after looking at this different method I say that child is wrong not because of the answer but because of how they got the answer then what I am really criticizing? The child or their way of thinking? I know that was a crazy way of explaining it, but that is how I describe the social relations during that time period.

After reading Lila Abu-Lughod's "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?" I was reminded of this image I came across a few weeks ago. Just wanted to share!