Back in 1992, Sir Mix-A-Lot (a famous rapper), came out with a song, "baby got back", which emphasized on the size of the butt of the African American women. In the beginning of the video are two white teenage girls commenting on a black woman standing there who has a largely proportionate backside. They even went as far as to call her a prostitute, since she was wearing a dress that fit rather tightly. In the song baby got back, as Sir Mix-A-Lot is complimenting the fact that black women have large butts and that is what black men prefer, a comment is made that "even white boys gotta shout", stating that it is a sexual desire to black men for "their" women to have large backsides, that she is so attractive that a white man has to agree. I thought, for a minute, that this was just a craze that had started in the 1990's, until I read the piece on Sarah Baartman. What I have to wonder is why was she picked out when it stated, "Baartman's physical characteristics, not unusual for Khoisan women, although her features were larger than normal,..." "....when a British ship's doctor, William Dunlop, took an interest in her. He was fascinated by her large backside and genitalia-common to Khoisan people.", again talking about how this was a common trait among the Khoisan's. Fascinated my ass, he was intrigued by her body as he as never seen anyone so well in doubt. When slavery was well on it's way not only just the white masters of the fields were "fascinated" with the women slaves that they raped them, however it went both ways that the wives of the masters, being fat and out of shape, were very fascinated by the stocky well built men slaves that they seduced them. Just how Sarah Baartman was seduced by telling her that that she was going to become rich by putting her body on display. The first sign of human trafficking, and possibly prostitution, although there isn't anything mentioned about in any article that I have read thus far. However I am sure that it went on and is kept hush hush.
Is it not enough, George Cuvier, that Sarah Baartman's body was exploited while she walked the earth, that now that she is dead, you mutilate her, and put pieces of her on display as though she is some freak show, some science project for the school science fair? A trophy that honors your findings? Why is Sarah Baartman not able to finally rest in peace as it usually written on one's tombstone? Or are those just words to make ourselves feel better about the loss of someone? Did you even shed a tear for her over what you and others put her through? Did you ever consider her a human being or just a side show for your own benefit, pleasure, and riches? How could Sarah Baartman be able to hold her head high knowing that she is only on exhibit? And we wonder why the women of today are silenced, and don't speak out when they are humiliated and objectified. They keep their mouths shut; Why? Because of decades and decades, and centuries of humiliation and degradation of their worth. Women have for years been looked upon as objects of pleasure and sexual desire, as was proven in the documentary "kiss me softly: 3". My 13 yr old son was able to see this documentary in one of my other classes, and his comment was, "Mom, who cares, they made the choice to do those ads, and pose for those pictures. Nobody forced them or put a gun to their head." Most would think like "OMG, he is already turning out to a womanizer", but in all actuality this opened up a great conversation, and allowed to two of to have a deep intellectual conversation that you wouldn't think a 13 yr old boy and his mother could have. Especially a mother who is considered to be a Feminist. I explained to him that he had a very good point, however that in the years of oppression, that in this day and time, that women are subjected and limited to what they need to do to make "the big bucks". If you notice anything that contributes largely to a woman's bank account, is considered to be sexual and contributes to the desire and sexual pleasure of the male species, and has a price to it as well and I'm not talking $$$. The price is her self-esteem, self-worth, her pride, her power of herself, control of her emotions and actions. She is not allowed to express her feelings because she is owned by someone who has the power and the say so, because they control on how much money she will receive. Prostitution, exotic dancing, modeling, pornography, pornographic films; even in Hollywood, an actresses income can be determined by how much skin she is willing to show. I have heard that Jennifer Lopez, who is also well known for her well-in doubt backside, actually has her butt insured for about $1,000,000,000. Sarah Baartman was not just an object of fascination, but an object of lustful fascination, however as a scientist, who is suppose to study and find out why the Khoisan's bodies are different than others in Eastern Europe, do a gene study, but to mutilate her body and cut it up in different pieces and then put it on display. " Georges Cuvier, you are no different than Jeffrey Daumer, you sick bastard"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It struck me as I read your post that one of the underlying deep assumptions when we look at people the way Cuvier looked at Baartman is that these people are a different species, not simply a different ethnic group. In science we say that there can be variation within a species but the way we divide up race and try to analyze it historically is almost implying that some humans are not humans but something completely different. When this is combined with man’s belief that they are to rule over other species the feeling of superiority and arrogance are astonishing. When we were sitting in class last night I wondered what historically was the innovation that placed gave one race more power. Where did the turn occur. This whole discussion has really put into perspective to me the way that history repeats itself. Lopez writes that historically:
ReplyDelete“…various minds tried to fashion practical human typologies along the following physical axes: skin color, hair texture, facial angle…”
This is similar to measuring head and brain attributes to differentiate the races, and now measuring all types of characteristics to define sexual identity. Repeatedly science tries to explain instead of embrace how we are different. We need to dissect for differences instead of viewing the whole. The class discussion has lead me where I think it was supposed to, to see that we are doing the same things over again instead of stepping back and looking at our humanity we are drawing lines and borders. Currently we are fascinated with trans-sexualism and sexual orientation, to normalize it by first declaring it biologically different. As opposed to recognizing it as a variation and accepting it to arrive much quicker to a framework of acceptanc
I completely LOVE the way that you link Cuvier to modern serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer. I hadn't made the connection between the two before, but it makes full sense that two such individuals would run on an odd parallel. Let's consider the twisted mirror of similarities. Both consume their victims. The scientist consumes by dissecting his "specimen" in an attempt to find concrete examples of what makes such victims such as Sarah Baartman inferior to those who are white skinned. Many serial killers spiral into the madness of cannibalism and literally consume their victims' bodies. Both makes displays of their victims. "Cuvier made a plaster cast of her body, then removed her skeleton and, after removing her brain and genitals, pickled them and displayed them in bottles at the Musee de l'Homme in Paris" (Davie, Sarah Baartman, At Rest at Last). The serial killer Ed Gein had a human flesh fetish and used bits of bodies in his house. "On his arrest, Gein's home in Wisconsin was found to contain furniture upholstered with human skin and decorated with skulls, faces hanging on the walls like decorative masks...female genitalia stored in shoe boxes (including his mother's, painted silver), and ornaments and clothing that Gein had fashioned from body parts, such as belt made from human nipples." (Goldman, The X-Files Book of the Unexplained, Vol. II, pgs. 71-72).
ReplyDeleteWomen are quite often targets from both torturers. The doctors seek ways to find us inferior or ways to control us, i.e.:the choices-or lack thereof rather-of reproductive freedom. Serial killers who rape/murder women often have an intense hatred of women for varying reasons.
An interesting note of difference is that many serial killers tend to hunt within their own ethnic groups while many of the doctors we have read about during this course have done the majority of their "experimentation" on members of other races.
Oh, and brief, but related sidenote: as a bit of a geek on this kind of dark matter, it was wicked cool to find out that you lived down the street from Dahmer and knew people that worked with him and everything when he got arrested:}
Great blog, Marcie!!