CHAPTER EIGHT

BATAVIAN COLONIAL POLITICS AND TRAVEL ACCOUNTS ABOUT SOUTH AFRICA

Early in 1803 the Cape Colony was returned to the Batavian Republic.1 The Cape had been occupied by the English in 1795, but in 1802, with the treaty of Amiens, it was agreed to end the occupation. On 1 March 1803 commissioner-general Jacob Abraham de Mist (1747–1823) and governor Jan Willem Janssens (1762–1838) took over the government of the Cape Colony from the English. The Batavian regime did not last long. After hostilities had broken out in Europe, a British fl eet of 61 ships sailed for the Cape. On 6 January 1806 an English expedition- ary force landed at Blaauwbergstrand, north of Cape Town, where it engaged a Dutch force a few days later. The hastily assembled Batavian army consisted of a mixed lot of German mercenaries, Cape burgers, French marines, various Dutch detachments, ‘Javanese’ artillery and a Khoikhoi battalion, in short people “of all nations and languages [. . .] who had been assembled here, no less different from one another, starting with the most decent descendants of the original settlers to Eastern and Mozambican slaves”.2 Unfortunately, this multicultural little army was not effi cient, but its composition did make it suitable for a commemoration of the battle in January 2006, in the twelfth year of existence of the multicultural ‘new’ South Africa. For this occasion the Batavian troops were elevated to the courageous defenders of the democratic ‘rainbow nation’ against a white British aggressor. In the description of this event special emphasis was put on the part played by the indigenous participants in the confl ict, although if truth be told

1 The Batavian Rupublic (‘Bataafse Republiek’) was the successor of the Republic of the United Provinces. It was created in 1795 after the French invasion of the United Provinces and it ended with the accession of Louis Bonaparte, the brother of Napoleon Bonaparte, to the throne of the Kingdom of Holland in 1806. During the Napoleonic Wars the Batavian Republic was an ally of France. 2 In the words of governor Janssens, cited by Krynauw (1999, p. 85): “van alle taalen en landaard [. . .], die hier byeen gebragt waren, niet minder onderling verschil- lend, beginnende met de fatzoenlykste kinderen uit de volkplanting, tot Oostersche en Mozambicqsche slaaven incluzive”. 170 chapter eight many more European soldiers fell on the Batavian side.3 The fact that this confl ict in 1806 was actually a confrontation between two colonial powers was conveniently forgotten in the offi cial commemoration.4 After the battle had been lost on 8 January 1806 governor Janssens signed the capitulation on 18 January on relatively favourable condi- tions. Janssens and the core of his troops were allowed to return to the Netherlands. However, the capitulation did not mean that the Nether- lands waived its claims to the Cape colony; the Dutch recognised the English authority over the Cape only in 1814. In the period during which the Batavian government was able to exercise power it was very diligent. The intention was to thoroughly reform the management and economy of the Cape Colony to the benefi t of its residents and of the Netherlands. This also affected the produc- tion of documents. In order to establish their authority and familiarise themselves with the country, Batavian offi cials travelled into the interior and returned with accounts of their travels (fi g. 36). In a little less than three years ten offi cial travel accounts were produced. With reference to these Batavian travel texts on South Africa, I want to show in the fi rst place the extent to which texts of this type were related to the development of colonial policy. Their purpose was mainly to collect facts, and even when they were written with care they still had to serve the development of colonial policy. In principle, all knowledge about the Cape could serve this purpose, even if the author of a travel account held anticolonial viewpoints, as Sparrman did. In the second place I want to examine how the Batavian travel accounts can be distinguished from one another and what images of South Africa they project. As regards the latter I will confi ne myself mainly to the way in which the inhabitants are represented. Most of the texts I will discuss were drawn up in the fi rst place to contribute to the formation of colonial policy. Therefore they have more

3 Krynauw (1999, pp. 84, 154). According to Couzens (2004, p. 45) 188 regular Dutch soldiers, 110 French marines, 4 colonists, 17 ‘coloureds’, 10 ‘Malays’ and 8 slaves were killed in action. 4 The Cape daily Die Burger even published a special commemorative supplement on 6 January 2006. One of the articles has the meaningful title: “Moslems, boere en bruines veg dapper teen Britse invallers by Blaauwberg” (Muslims, Boers and Coloureds bravely fi ght British invaders at Blaauwberg). In South African historiography and in historical fi ction the Batavian period has always been presented favourably. Because the Batavian period was short and the governors had so many good intentions it has always been a convenient screen for projecting historical wishful thinking.