Autshumao (AKA Herri die Strandloper [beachcomber]) was a Khoe chief. Around 1630, he agreed to accompany a visiting ship to Bantam in Java where he learnt much about Europeans, including their languages, such as English and Dutch. (1/10)

On 6 April 1652, Jan van Riebeeck was received at the Cape by the Autshumao and his people. In the 8 months after van Riebeeck’s arrival, he built a fort on top of Autshumao’s settlement. (2/10)
This was van Riebeeck’s view of his hosts, recorded in his diary on 13 May 1656: “It won’t do to say they are merely wild savages… For the more they are known, the more impertinent they are found to be…” (3/10)
In 1658, all civil relationships between the Dutch and Khoe had deteriorated and war broke out when Autshumao reclaimed cattle that were unfairly taken from his people by the Dutch. (4/10)
In 1659, after losing this war, he and some followers became the first prisoners on Robben Island. The following year Autshumao and one other prisoner escaped by stealing a rowing boat, which got them to the mainland. (5/10)
Van Riebeeck’s diary entry of 5 and 6 April 1660: “This day peace was once more concluded with the captain and chief of the Kaapmen, Herri, and all the principal men and elders... they firmly maintained their grievance… (6/10)
“that we had more and more taken of their lands for ourselves, which had been their property for centuries, and on which they had been accustomed to de-pasture their cattle, &c. They also asked… (7/10)
“whether they would be allowed to do the same thing if they came to Holland, and added that it would have mattered little if we had confined ourselves to the Fort, but that instead we were selecting the best lands for ourselves… (8/10)
“they steadfastly adhered to their claims it was at last necessary to tell them that they had now lost the land on account of the war… and that we intended to keep it.” Autshumao died in 1663. (9/10)
Read more about Autshumao here: https://t.co/t86VmXoLKF and about the establishment of the port at the Cape in The Lie of 1652 by @melletpt. #AColouredTapestry (10/10)

More from Startup

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x