Monsieur Cuvier,
It is in regard to your simplistically analytical use of the remains of Sarah Baartman that this letter finds its way to your desk on this warm summer's eve. I suppose it was your belief that you were contributing to the advancement of the cause of scientific discovery that you dismembered her body before removing chosen organs, preserved them, and proceeded to put them on display in Paris at the Musee de l'Homme. I wonder, had the woman on your medical slab been a fellow Parisian or one of your female European neighbors or even a spunky American lass, would you have been so willing to butcher her corpse and display it for the curious, gawking eyes of your fellow scientists and the general public?
What exactly were you hoping to accomplish by putting Sarah Baartman's remains on display? To show the masses the general inferiority of such an "exotic creature" to that of a stronger, smarter, infinitely more elite persona? Did you prove that there was actually a difference between the "proper white woman" and the "lowly former black slave"? Did you have a so-called "normal" female specimen on display for comparison? Most likely not. That would have been an affront to civilized society. Because this young woman was not white, was not "dainty", but was instead black, with abnormally large buttocks and genitals, she was quite clearly the perfect example for the scientific community and the general public of the "inferior and oversexed" who are simply better for nothing than a mistreated side-show freak.
In her article, "Sarah Baartman, at Rest at Last", Lucille Davie tells us,"Baartman was born in 1789. She was working as a slave in Cape Town whe nshe was "discovered" by British ship's doctor William Dunlop, who persuaded her to travel with him to England. We'll never know what she had in mind when she stepped on board-of her own free will-a ship for London." I wonder if the situation had been reversed, Monsieur, if the subject of your scrutiny had been white-or of an otherwise less "wild" breed of woman- would she have been treated so unjustly? Or perhaps if Sarah had been given the same chances of education and other societal privileges as a woman of lighter skin, limited as they were in your time, would she have encountered a more civil farewell to life? Sarah Baartman, because of her color, her class, her difference became a freak to those she was paraded before, fit for nothing more than degradation and lecherous staring by her observers. She died in a foreign land, with no family to speak for her loss, and no means of having her body returned to her home for a proper burial.
I wonder if you would have let this crime against a human being go without impunity should she have been of a color closer to your own skin. Would you have been okay with knowing that their body would remain a displayed mockery of existence until its pieces were finally petitioned for centuries later? Or, perhaps, would you have let the atrocity occur so long as it was "beneficial" to your precious, if ultimately useless, "science"?
It is in regard to your simplistically analytical use of the remains of Sarah Baartman that this letter finds its way to your desk on this warm summer's eve. I suppose it was your belief that you were contributing to the advancement of the cause of scientific discovery that you dismembered her body before removing chosen organs, preserved them, and proceeded to put them on display in Paris at the Musee de l'Homme. I wonder, had the woman on your medical slab been a fellow Parisian or one of your female European neighbors or even a spunky American lass, would you have been so willing to butcher her corpse and display it for the curious, gawking eyes of your fellow scientists and the general public?
"...the history of science has long been the history of failed efforts to justify...social beliefs. Along the way, various minds tried to fashion practical human typologies along the following physical axes: skin color, hair texture, facial angle, jaw size, cranial capacity, brain mass, frontal lobe mass, brain surface fissures and convolutions, and even body lice. As one scholar notes, "the nineteenth century was a period of exhaustive and -as it turned out-futile search for criteria to define and describe race differences." (Lopez, pgs. 52-53)
What exactly were you hoping to accomplish by putting Sarah Baartman's remains on display? To show the masses the general inferiority of such an "exotic creature" to that of a stronger, smarter, infinitely more elite persona? Did you prove that there was actually a difference between the "proper white woman" and the "lowly former black slave"? Did you have a so-called "normal" female specimen on display for comparison? Most likely not. That would have been an affront to civilized society. Because this young woman was not white, was not "dainty", but was instead black, with abnormally large buttocks and genitals, she was quite clearly the perfect example for the scientific community and the general public of the "inferior and oversexed" who are simply better for nothing than a mistreated side-show freak.
In her article, "Sarah Baartman, at Rest at Last", Lucille Davie tells us,"Baartman was born in 1789. She was working as a slave in Cape Town whe nshe was "discovered" by British ship's doctor William Dunlop, who persuaded her to travel with him to England. We'll never know what she had in mind when she stepped on board-of her own free will-a ship for London." I wonder if the situation had been reversed, Monsieur, if the subject of your scrutiny had been white-or of an otherwise less "wild" breed of woman- would she have been treated so unjustly? Or perhaps if Sarah had been given the same chances of education and other societal privileges as a woman of lighter skin, limited as they were in your time, would she have encountered a more civil farewell to life? Sarah Baartman, because of her color, her class, her difference became a freak to those she was paraded before, fit for nothing more than degradation and lecherous staring by her observers. She died in a foreign land, with no family to speak for her loss, and no means of having her body returned to her home for a proper burial.
I wonder if you would have let this crime against a human being go without impunity should she have been of a color closer to your own skin. Would you have been okay with knowing that their body would remain a displayed mockery of existence until its pieces were finally petitioned for centuries later? Or, perhaps, would you have let the atrocity occur so long as it was "beneficial" to your precious, if ultimately useless, "science"?
Regards,
~B~
Your creativity is wonderful. And, you are so right to point out that we are now moving from the scientific attempts to prove that there are biological differences between men and women and into the scientific attempts to prove that there are biological differences between women! Please bring up your exploration in class!
ReplyDeletegreat post brandy!!
ReplyDeleteI love that you made your response in epistolary form. How clever!
Brandy, I totally agree with you, what would have happened if the comparison would have been done with a woman of a much higher stature. What I am most curious about is what Monsieur Cuvier’s response would be to your letter. What argument would he generate to justify what he calls science? Putting a woman’s genitals and other organs on display must be the most degrading, belittling objectifying act anyone could ever do, and on top of it all, have the nerve to call it “science”. In my blog I compared Monsieur Cuvier to Jeffery Daumer, however the other day in class you reminded me of another serial psycho that would probably be a better fit to his mad yet insane tactics, Ed Gein. Jeffery Daumer, yes, mutilated bodies, but used them for his own sexual pleasure and never really put any of their organs on display; he was looked at more as a canablist. However, Ed Gein paraded around in the faces of his victims (that he peeled off their heads, created bowls of their skulls, upholstered his furniture and made lamp shades with their skins. So we could say that Monsieur Cuvier is no better than our everyday serial psycho killer.
ReplyDeleteLet’s not forget that in the midst of her depression, her unhappiness, she was forced to resort to prostitution when making her an exhibit was no longer pleasing to her. Not forced by man, but forced by her emotions that over took her self-worth, her confidence, her womanhood. It was probably the only way that she could feel like a real woman. Back home, in her native country, Sarah was probably thought of as a voluptuous, beautiful, African Queen. She was looked upon a prize, the woman that the tribal men would be proud to have as a wife, a mate. But taken to another country where she was looked at as a spectacle, and a freak show, it was her depression, and unhappiness that drove her to drinking and living a life of prostitution. After all what other type of lifestyle would she be able to have? She couldn’t be able to actually have any type of normal lifestyle after being the laughing stock of Paris. I don’t believe that prostitution and drinking caused Sarah’s death. It was a broken heart, a broken spirit, the inability to be a complete woman. She was looking for love in all the wrong places. Monsieur Cuvier, I believe you were the true freak show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Gein