gobetweensevakrotoa-blog - Tumblr blog

gobetweensevakrotoa-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Introduction

Trying to understand Eva/Krotoa through a singular binary lens of analysis would not do justice to understanding her fascinating life. Primary sources on Eva/Krotoa focus upon her role as a go-between mediator/translator, between the Dutch and the Khoena people. Revisionist historiography on her life expands this notion intensely, specifically allowing for a perception of her as this indigenous woman who had incredible power and autonomy. A holistic inclusive analysis of her seemed to be the correct option.

Krotoa, later known as Eva, was born into an indigenous Khoisan society near what is now Cape Town in the 1640s, and first encountered the Dutch, as they passed through Table Bay for fresh water on the way to the Indies. She was of high status, related through marriage to the powerful Cochoqua Khoisan clan of the Interior and her sister was married to the chief Oedasoa. In 1652, the Dutch East India Company appointed Governor Van Riebeeck to build a fort, initiate trade with local societies and to start a refreshment station at the Cape. It is believed that Krotoa was sent my her tribe to the Dutch in order to learn more about their settlement. At age 12, she went to live with Van Riebeeck who incorporated her into his household as apparently, a companion and servant to his wife and children. However there is much speculation to this as it appears that Van Riebeeck demonstrated to Krotoa in his diaries that he might have had a sexual relationship with her. Nevertheless, Krotoa’s function was to work as a translator and mediator between the Dutch and the Cochoqua, one of the largest clans in the interior. In her later teens it is understood that Krotoa left the Dutch fort of her own accord, presumably to undergo initiation rites and perhaps to prepare for marriage. However she returned to the Castle shortly thereafter. In 1664, she married a Danish surgeon Pieter Van Meerhoff and bore him three children. Historians have speculated that Dutch society appears to have incorporated the couple and Krotoa continued her diplomatic career as a translator and mediator. Three years after their marriage in 1667, Pieter died on an expedition. With his death and the ascendence of a new governor, Wagenaar, Krotoa’s life took a turn for the worst. Wagenaar held a far more negative view of the local Khoisan than his predecessor, and after waging two successful wars against the Khoisan, the Dutch settlement was seemingly secure. This security ultimately meant that Krotoa’s skills as a translator was not required, her purpose has ceased to be necessary. The loss of her purpose was worsened as the Dutch colonists removed Krotoa’s children away from and put them up for adoption. Krotoa died then in 1674, alone and destitute on Robben Island (which was an island near Cape Town where the Dutch East India Company sent political exiles from the Indies).

Keeping with this kaleidoscopic type of analysis, we deemed it suitable to try to analyse the facets of Eva/Krotea. This is first seen with the self-fashioning of Eva/Krotea looking at how her gender, religion and skilled ability allowed her to conceptualise herself as a successful go-between. This is then expanded on with a second analysis of the demographics that applied to Eva/Krotea – for example her hybridized identity of Dutch and Khoena, as well as position as a mother and how this related to the body politic. Following on from these different analyses, we thought it would be interesting to see gauge a comparison between other go-betweens who were indigenous women and to see if there were any commonalities between them.

0 notes

gobetweensevakrotoa-blog · 7 years ago

Text

How did Krotoa act as a self-fashioning go-between?

Krotoa was an intriguing go-between in the sense that she was aware of her value as a translator and was able to manipulate this value to elevate and in some cases change her position within the Dutch camp. The way Krotoa did this was by fully assuming the role of ‘Eva’. This was the name given to her by the Dutch when she was given to them as a servant. Along with the name came expectations, these expectations involved her assuming the role of a submissive translator, whilst fully immersing herself into the Dutch way of life.

The initial way in which Krotoa managed to manipulate her value, was by conforming to gender stereotypes that the Dutch had on indigenous women. The Dutch commanders knew local translators were integral in their survival, however, it was hard for them to trust indigenous men, who were often headstrong and unsympathetic to the Dutch cause. Indigenous women on the other hand, were viewed as more pliable and therefore, more trustworthy. Because of this, Krotoa was essential to the Dutch, a key fact she was gradually became aware of, which meant she was able to further cement her usefulness to the Dutch. Julia Wells suggests that in particular, Van Riebeek, the Dutch commander, was greatly captivated by indigenous women, Wells even goes on to hint at a special intimate relationship that Van Riebeek may have had with Krotoa. Although the evidence for this intimate relationship is purely circumstantial and there are no indications to prove if these feelings were mutual, it can definitely still prove to an extent why Krotoa was further held in such high esteem by the Dutch. Krotoa’s gender made Van Riebeek more susceptible to preferring to Dutch favour, especially since she occupied such an important space as a translator, between the two tense camps. The way in which Krotoa used this to her advantage was by attaining a sense of autonomy. This autonomy allowed her to be kept around the centralities of power gaining knowledge and certain freedoms along with it, unlike her male counterparts who were often marginalised due to their assumed strong loyalties to their indigenous roots. This is further evidenced by Van Riebeek’s journal, who often depicts the influence Krotoa had on important decisions. In addition, this autonomy was further solidified by Krotoa’s marriage to Pieter van Meerhof a surgeon in the Dutch camp. This marriage further exemplifies the way in which Krotoa used her role to gain esteem.

The second way in which Krotoa was able to fashion a sense of agency from her role as an intermediary, was through her abandonment of her indigenous loyalties. The commander’s diaries retell an instance in which Krotoa is seen to abandon the interests of her people. This instance describes the disappearance of slaves and how Krotoa became an informant on her own people in favour of the Dutch, telling them which family harboured the escaped slaves. It can be suggested from this that Krotoa, who continually showed her loyalty to the Dutch, was able to be viewed as more than just an interpreter. Julia Wells states that Krotoa ‘projected herself in a highly interventionist way’ suggesting how Krotoa asserted herself and made her role pliable, in favour of her gaining agency from the Dutch.

Krotoa’s ability to establish a sense of freedom and agency is exemplary of sociologist Georg Simmel’s theory. This is the theory of ‘tertius gaudens’ which literally translates to the ‘rejoicing third’ in English. Simmel describes this as the ability of a go-between to exploit their complicated position in order for it to benefit them. From this we can infer how Krotoa acting as an intermediary as an indigenous woman did not stop her from exploiting her role as a go-between for her own benefit. Therefore, Krotoa is an exemplary case-study of Simmels theory.

Sources:

Georg Simmel, The Sociology of Georg Simmel, (New York, 1964)

Jan van Riebeecks journal- primary source http://chnm.gmu.edu/wwh/modules/lesson7/pdfs/primarysourcepacket.pdf

Julia C. Wells, ‘Eva’s Men: Gender and Power in the Establishment of the Cape of Good Hope, 1652-74’

0 notes

gobetweensevakrotoa-blog · 7 years ago

Text

How does Eva/Krotoa navigate as a go-between, through the concepts of body natural and body politic?

Focusing on the construction of Eva/Krotoa as a go-between through the concepts of body natural and body politic, I intend to look at her through an inter-cultural lens to explore how she manoeuvred within these two frameworks. I will be defining her body natural as her identity and duty as a Khohena Woman, against that of her body politic, in her role as a cultural translator for the Dutch. For Eva/Krotoa, we must recognise that her identity is the result of a process of ‘reconstruction’, an emblematic figure in a wider narrative of cross-cultural politics, a character in the story of colonial encounters. In particular, I will be deconstructing Jan Van Riebeeck’s 23rd September 1658 journal entry, to explore Eva/Krotoa’s navigation between her body natural and body politic.

Jan Van Riebeeck, 23rd September 1658: “The interpreters Doman, or Anthonij, and Eva wished to visit their friends and asked for some copper, iron, beads, tobacco, bread, and brandy as a reward for their services as interpreters, and presents for her mother and their friends and all the natives whom they, especially Eva, would visit, to induce them to bring a larger number of cattle, as well as young horses, tusks, civet, amber, seed pearls (of which they were shown and given samples) and hides to the eland, hart, steenbuck, etc. They promised to do their best and hoped that we would soon see the fruits of their efforts; toward evening they thanked us politely and gratefully in good Dutch words for the presents they had received. They then left. When Eva reached the matted hut of Doman, also known as Anthonj, outside the fort, she at once dressed herself in the hides again and sent her clothes home. She intended to put them on again when she returned to the Commander’s wife, promising, however, that she would in the meantime not forget the Lord God, Whom she had learnt to know in the Commander’s house; she would always think of Him and endeavour to learn.”

Van Riebeeck’s diary entry illuminates the hybridisation of Eva/Krotoa, and the use of her body as tool of integration. Rarely is the body a neutral area, rather it is informed by the social and political contexts of the era. The entry explores her inter-cultural relations, through assimilating within family and friendship circles, and within the Dutch. In particular, Eva/Krotoa as a black woman, was defined through the intersecting framework of her race and gender, and thus can be seen to be a ‘unit of analysis’, as demonstrated in the diary entry. The visualisation in her change of dress, demonstrates the manoeuvring between her body natural and body politic. The agency in her choice is evidenced through the rewards for the interpreters, the gift to her family and friends, and her transition back into the role as Dutch culture translator. Her exploitation of her surroundings, allowed her to use her physicality as a woman and a black woman to form inter-personal relations. In treating her race and gender as two intersecting frameworks, we can approach how her role as cultural mediator was informed by her body natural and body politic.

Frances Gouda reinforces this sense of the body as a ‘literal or figurative translator and go-between’, and thus can reiterate idea of the black woman’s body as a battleground of political and cultural encounters, used for the benefit of her colonisers. But, Eva/Krotoa’s use of mind and body to act as cultural mediator; an overlapping of her body natural and body politics in the hopes of benefitting both her political obligations to the Dutch and the familial resonances to the Khoena, is an indicator of her agency in acting as a go-between, reclaiming this narrative of consistent victimhood. Encountering the body as a ‘cultural connective tissue’ this idea of the importance of physical presence, as imposing the ‘literal’ nature of a go-between, enlightens Eva/Krotoa’s position in her interventionist community role. From her gift giving, to her change of dress, Eva/Krotoa aligns her body natural and body politic, to succeed in her role as a go-between.

Eva/Krotoa’s agency is her power, in embodying both her body natural and body politic, but her manoeuvring within the two spaces reiterates its necessity in her survival as a go-between. February 8th 1669, her demise is solidified in apparent case of drunken behaviour as a ‘grand colonial gathering’ where Eva/Krotoa uses abusive language in her native language, that resulted in her final exile. As Zoë Wicomb considered this was representative of her inability to conform, her ‘untranslatability’ into European culture, epitomised by her abusive language. This adherence to the body politic that was forced upon her, the European standards of her capability as an individual, is an alarming reality of the expendability of go-betweens. Interpreting this sense of differentiation between Eva and Krotoa, and her attempts to bind both realities together rather than a translative figure, exemplifies her ‘displacement’ in her role as a go-between. Though she had successfully navigated between both, when she conformed to the European perspective of her less ‘civilised’ body natural, she failed in integrating into her body politic, and solidified her lack of assimilation into European identity and her role as a go-between.

Sources:

Wicomb, Zoë, ‘Translations in the yard of Africa’, Journal of Literary Studies, 18 (2002), 209-223.

Conradie, Pieter, ‘The story of Eva (Krotoa): Translation transgressed’, Journal of Literary Studies, 14(1998), pp.55-66.

Riebeecks, Jan van, Journal (http://chnm.gmu.edu/wwh/modules/lesson7/pdfs/primarysourcepacket.pdf)

0 notes

gobetweensevakrotoa-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Is there a commonality regarding indigenous women who acted as go-betweens?

The significance of Eva/Krotoa extends well beyond her individual case as a go-between; her particular self-fashioning and constraint of being a woman of colour, an indigenous woman at that, is something that in the early modern period was not widely documented about. The demographic that Eva/Krotoa represents – an indigenous woman who became a go-between is also seen represented by two other women – Pocahontas and Malinche/Dona Marina. What is even more fascinating, is a potential framework that can be construed by comparing and contrasting indigenous women who were go-betweens and their experiences; Eva/Krotoa, Malinche/Dona Marina and Pocahontas to understand whether there is a commonality or not.

The core of this framework centres around the over-sexualisation of these women as a means to ensure domination, more specifically colonial domination. ‘The stories of Malinche, Pocahontas and Krotoa are almost too familiar. They resonate so comfortably with a kind of inevitability and truth that seems, on reflection perhaps too neat.’ This commonality is laid out as such – ‘the myth tells us of a young woman tied to the land through her natal heritage, and reproductive capacity. A male foreigner arrives needing legitimacy to justify his conquest and so marries the girl in question and brings forth a child whose presence, if only symbolically affirms the fathers’ right to the soil.’

An initial point that can be construed, concerns this idea of a God complex evidenced by this conquest of a new land, and Hamlin goes further to mention the idea of ‘single-handedly conquering’ this new land which brings about glory and masculine adventure for the individual man. This aforementioned ‘glory’ is cushioned by the prize of an indigenous consort and then children as well. Kerry Ward connects the narrative model of the young native woman welcoming the European man to be intrinsically linked to the myth model of the European man as God. In the case of Krotoa and Pocahontas, they literally converted to Christianity, and this act of conversion was a key development in the relationship with the European man. This can be understood with ‘the European man as god/husband and indigenous woman as convert/wife became then also emblematic of indigenous society: European man became “god’s gift to women” and indigenous society.’ Looking even deeper at this connection between the European man and the indigenous woman, it becomes apparent that these women, in historical notation can only be perceived through the lens of their relationship with the European man. This raises a provocative question regarding the limitation of their agency as go-betweens, women who had power in situations but were constrained by their colonizer-colonized paradigm. In other words, these women were strictly puppets for the colonizing mission and any autonomy they could have had is not emphasised without reference to the wider colonizing mission, which sees itself as a limitation to understanding these women through other lens.

An exploration of their reference in history and agency suffices to be the next stage of analysis. What appears common amongst these three women is the skeleton outline of their lives. ‘The young women were all in a liminal state of transition to early womanhood, all were nobility, all ended up marrying European men and having their children. They all then died in connection with a European influence whether that be encounters with European men, European pathogens or alcoholism as is the case with Krotoa’. All these women gained agency as physical go-betweens as translators and mediators. In opposition to the view held in the previous paragraph, feminist revisionism of these women’s lives especially Krotoa and Malinche sees that these women exercised power and agency in their own situations as a means to benefit themselves primarily but also influence colonial policy. Krotoa gained autonomy through translating as evidenced with her revealing a lot more to Van Riebeeck than the previous translator Autshumato did. Wells regards ‘Eva’s willingness to please the Dutch with fresh information at the expense of breaking rank with her own kinsman and other Khoena interpreters’ as a significant point regarding autonomy.

Another commonality in this framework concerns their transition from the ‘Orient’ to the ‘Occident’ and then their legacy. Linking the start of their reference in history with their historical legacy; the beginning and the end, finds that the perception of these women is to varying degrees negative. There is an overwhelming idea that these women are traitors especially to their indigenous communities today to varying degrees, but understanding this legacy requires an understanding of how they even assumed this position of go-between. These women were all given to the European powers as a gift, or exchange. As Scully denotes that ‘indigenous elders perceived that they could establish diplomatic ties and familial connections with European men through the exchange of young women.’ This is as a result of ‘the model of the girl as mediator and translator mesh[ing] so well with long-held views of women’s particular gifts as conciliators and nurturers.’ However, a deeper understanding of this concept of exchange sees that the ‘Europeans understood this exchangeability to move only one way, from native woman to European man, not from European woman to native elite male.’ A side note of this quote highlights the gendered and racial discourse that dominated Orientalism – there was an obvious feminization of indigenous societies and then an overt masculinization of Europe. It is obvious that these women exercised no autonomy concerning the decision to leave their native home, they are almost cast out by their own tribe, and then when they exercise autonomy and power as a means to benefit themselves, they are regarded as treacherous. This is concisely emphasised with Malinche and ‘a terrible sort of agency has been historically ascribed to Malinche, as if she had a choice in the matter, as if she knew about the new empire that would emerge from her work as a translator.’ Pocahontas is not held in high regard in the views of Virginian native Americans. Krotoa’s legacy however, prompted a reconceptualization of the challenges of creating a nation so shaped by racism.

This exploration of the experiences of indigeneous women who acted a go-betweens makes explicit their effect upon understanding the historiography on the Atlantic world. There appears a commonality amongst these three different women’s experiences considering that they happened in different places, times and by different colonizers, which suggests that more widely the construction of the indigenous woman as a go-between was favoured as a means to ensure the colonizing mission as well as innumerous effects ranging from nation building to legacy creation. Furthermore, there exists a framework to understanding European Colonialism in the Atlantic World as well as insights to the functioning of go-betweens.

Exploring the complexities of colonial cultures in a comparative frame, requires the recognition and study of the histories of women who did not stand in the space of ‘mestizaje and sexuality’. There is an intent historical focus on women who had relationships with European men, which in turn maintains the analytic focus on the space of the colonizer. As a result of this, the lives of other women who worked in houses and the fields, and the entourages of explorers remain harder to see. Scully states that ‘the challenge is to examine the many complex, unequal, and precarious lives of all women in the new frontiers of the early modern era.’

Sources:

Scully P, ‘Malintzin, Pocahontas, And Krotoa: Indigenous Women And Myth Models Of The Atlantic World’ (2005) 6 Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History

Wells J, 'Eva’s Men: Gender And Power In The Establishment Of The Cape Of Good Hope, 1652–74’ (1998) 39 The Journal of African History

0 notes