Christoffel Snyman - Was he actually ever a slave?

Didn't someone do a DNA test, & the result was North European/German?...re. Christoffel Snyman.

Yes, you're right Danielle - but the slave was his mother - and that result is about his father.

My answer was:
=Hello Kornelius
Thank you for the careful way you worded that.
Can you send me the link to Mansell's revised "In hevigen woede"? I see the one on the profile doesn't work anymore & I'd be very interested to read the new one.

As to the correctness of the statement - I completely agree that we must get it as right as we can, no hard feelings about questioning Data - this is all of our tree, and we want it historically accurate. The Curator note is there to help everybody - it's not much use if it's misleading them :-)

I'm going to start a Discussion on the profile posing your query. That way everybody else can jump in and research and give their opinions too. Although these can sometimes get acrimonious, they also often inspire people to go and search out their records in order to get involved in the decision making - which is what we want on a communal tree, and is often lots of fun.

Thankyou for your interest=

What do people think about his status as a slave?
To my mind, it isn't worth keeping it as a Curator note if it irritates the descendants, even if it is factually correct (and Kornelius makes a good argument for it not being correct) - so I will remove it,

but I thought - as there is research going on in this area - people connected to the profile might find it interesting and some might like to join the Discussion with what they have researched or have an opinion on.

I really appreciate all the research done on this profile. Isn't it one of the most mesmerizing in the South African tree? I hope someone eventually can obtain all the facts.

According to the FFYP profile http://www.e-family.co.za/ffy/g5/p5115.htm Christoffel Snijman was born in bondage - bapt 9 March 1669 and was owned by the VOC (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie), de Caep de Goede Hoop.

Is our roll as historians not to reflect facts and not be biased according to our modern day beliefs and sensitivities? We can't change what was true at the time?

Thanks Private User - going off to read it.

Private User - you have a point; and it appears from that info that "Freed Slave" might be a better description in the About.

Maybe other managers want to comment on whether or not they think it is un/necessary to include it in the Curator note?

I would reflect what is recorded in FFY unless the link reflect the opposite - in which case both views should be given prominence

This is what I see of relevance to this Discussion in Private User's article: http://www.e-family.co.za/ffy/exhibits/in-hevigen-woede.pdf:

As Kornelius Snyman points out: "..Christoffel is never once referred to as a slave in the records." (after being automatically? freed by his mother's marriage to a freed slave when he was 2 yrs old. See also:http://www.e-family.co.za/ffy/g5/p5115.htm)

But much of the content at the end of the article is taken up examining the consequences for Christoffel & his descendants of being "one of the very few halfslag Cape-born and slave-born men to have taken a European wife."

So, the question remains whether people think this is a sufficiently important/ useful fact to be recorded in the Curator note, as well as in the About?

Wow! What a story!

It's so interesting, isn't it?

Hi Sharon, the importance of whether somebody is from a slave background ... as we all are, should be highlighted if the label was officially used to distinguish that person during their lifetime.

If the evidence is documented then we have a duty to preserve it for posterity, if there are no period sources or if the label is inferred onto somebody by association then the onus is on all of us to refrain from making assumptions or sensationalizing slave heritage as this is insensitive and in bad taste.

So if Christoffel's father was German, & his mother from India, would that then make him a slave?

It's good to see the lively and interesting discussion above.

I think we all agree that according to the best information available today (in particular Upham's "In Hevigen Woede") Christoffel Snyman's mother (Groote Catriijn) was a convict and slave when she arrived at the Cape on 21/02/1657. However, she was recognised as a free woman as early as 20/12/1671 when she married Anthonij Jansz van Bengale95. Christoffel was only two years old at the time.

So, at some time after February 1657 and before December 1671 she was recognised as a free woman. What was that date?

In "In Hevigen Woede" p14 it the following is stated with regards to Christoffel Snyman's baptism: "A curious feature about this particular baptismal entry is the fact that neither Christoffel’s nor his mother’s slave status are mentioned."

Could this be an indication that Groote Catrijn was already seen as a free woman when Christoffel was baptised? What about when he was born (9/3/1669)?

Is there any evidence (records or at least reference to official records, and not circumstantial speculation) that Christoffel Snyman was ever a slave?

Good point Kornelius Snyman Let's take a look at the records that the FFYP uses to substantiate that. That info - even worded as a query- needs to be in the About Section, no question.

The question left here is whether the following is of sufficiently unique significance (and I think it is) to put in a Curator note:

"Christoffel was one of the very few halfslag Cape-born men to have taken a European wife."

Private User not sure how trying together to accurately log someone's historical significance can be in bad taste, but your tone certainly is.

Private User, children born to slave mothers were automatically the property of whomever owned the mother.

-On 3 June 1668 she was a slave owned by the VOC at the Cape.
-Christoffel was born before 9 Mar 1669
-"She was manumitted in December 1671 de Caep de Goede Hoop according to Mansell Upham. He writes that while no record has been found of the manumission, it was confirmed a month later, on 6 January 1672, in a report sent to the Heeren XVII, that she had been pardoned and freed. She was, at the same time, granted permission to marry the free black Anthonij Jansz van Bengale. With this, she became the first company owned slave to be manumitted at the Cape"http://www.e-family.co.za/ffy/g5/p5248.htm

Private: You say =I am sure there is more people like myself who stil ? the 100% correctness of this newbie, the MtDNA, DNA etc.= I don't want to get this Discussion sidetracked by asking here what you mean by this statement, because - as Don says - this is a Discussion about records, not DNA.
But, niggie, you have now said this so often that I think we should start a separate Discussion to figure out what exactly you understand by DNA being 100% correct. Maybe it will benefit other SA users trying to figure out how DNA can be used in genealogy?

Sharon wrote:

''Alexander Armenis not sure how trying together to accurately log someone's historical significance can be in bad taste, but your tone certainly is''

Your comment is unwarranted. How did you come to your conclusion based on what I said below?

>>Hi Sharon, the importance of whether somebody is from a slave background ... as we all are, should be highlighted if the label was officially used to distinguish that person during their lifetime.

If the evidence is documented then we have a duty to preserve it for posterity, if there are no period sources or if the label is inferred onto somebody by association then the onus is on all of us to refrain from making assumptions or sensationalizing slave heritage as this is insensitive and in bad taste.<<

Sharon, do you believe that this is not sensationalist or in bad taste?

Sharon wrote: >>"Christoffel was one of the few free slaves who married into the white community."<<

If you believe the above to be in good taste then we have a difference of opinion as to what it means to be non-sensationalist and provide an accurate account of the historical documentation.

Alexander, this conversation is about historical facts, not about taste.

Your suggestion that it is about sensationalizing assumes that it is somehow shameful that he married across class or colour lines, when it is in fact significant, not because it is shameful, but because it reveals a social mobility that is very rare in our historical understanding of the period.

While white men procreated with their slaves; it is extremely rare to see the reverse situation occurring.

The question is not about good taste, but about whether it is sufficiently historically unique to alert people to its significance in a Curator note.

Sharon, Christoffel Snijman's legacy or historical significance is not that he married into the white community. This is in bad taste and insensitive. We should not be butting heads over this. It's unnecessary and off-topic.

Alexander, this is the topic: and I am arguing that Christoffel Snijman's most unique historical significance is exactly that he married into the white community at a time when very few half-caste men could.

If you believe this to be in bad taste to mention, that says something about your own prejudices.

I agree with you that people need to be made aware of the social mobility issues within disadvantaged groups such as the male slave population at the Cape during colonial times.

Christoffel Snijman was not a member of the slave population when he got married, this is accepted by everybody. His heritage was not an issue when he got married or no mention of it exists in the records. To make his a case of social mobility and placing emphasis on his slave heritage when it is not mentioned in any documents is questionable.

To assume that Christoffel Snijman was less than a fully accepted member of the community in which he lived and married is speculative.

I opened the discussion in order that everyone could talk over the historical accuracy of the Curator comment.

I objected to your belligerent tone, as we were trying to keep the conversation amicable. Your point that you feel mention of his colour / all colour is insensitive is taken.
I am saying I think it is illogical, but that doesn't mean I'm right.

Usually you and I get on well, so let's move on for the moment, so that other people can help us talk these issues through to a wording we all agree on.

Cross-posted, sorry.
Read the end of Mansell's paper (link above) where he argues that there was indeed good reason to infer that his social mobility caused disquiet in the church and with his own father-in-law.

Thanks Sharon for pointing out the historical facts of one of my ancestors. I have found it so very interesting.

You have made me want to dig deeper into the backgrounds of him and his mother. Their social standing, race and status are all relevant.

I look forward to hearing more.

Regards,
Adri

:-) Thanks Adri. It is interesting. Hopefully the fact that it gets heated won't put other people off joining the conversation.
These are the 2 points that I see being made about the Curator Note:

1) That referring to him as a slave - even a freed one - may be misleading because there is a question mark about this status.
I think Kornelius & Alexander are quite possibly correct to say that we should remove the reference to 'freed slave' out of the Curator note.

So
2) Do we even mention in the Curator Note the significance of the fact that he married quite uniquely for a half-caste man of the time into the white community?
-Alexander thinks this is insensitive. I think that he's being illogical
-Alexander thinks this isn't so historically significant as to warrant a Curator Note about it. I think it is, but think he may also have a point, and if others agree with him then I should remove that part of the note as well.

Now I'm leaving the conversation until tomorrow.

Sharon, we do get on well even if we disagree at times. The colour/race issue is distasteful because it was slavery, a serious injustice.

The issue of sensitivity for me is in using the label half-caste, slave or half-slag and stating that this was a case whereby the 'white community' accepted marriage between a half-caste man and a 'white' woman. This is an agenda that has no basis in the history of the time, no proof to back your argument, nor any other case of the kind to suggest that there was such a practice.

In fact, Mansell Upham states his surprise at Jacques de Savoye's acceptance of Christoffel Snijman as his son-in-law. Mansell Upham states his prejudice clearly, he viewed Christoffel as a half-caste, as you do. There appears to be a lack of understanding as to why such an aristocratic tempered Jacques de Savoye would be so accepting of a 'half-caste' son-in-law. If we apply logic (law of Parsimony) to this argument we get the most probable answer which is that Christoffel Snijman was no different in appearance or status than any other free-burger during the time. To suggest otherwise would be illogical, hence Mansell Upham's stated confusion.

I am concerned that you may be making things seem more amicable between slaves and their masters than they really were. This is why I am pleading for you to consider how you express your views considering social mobility by 'free slaves'.

Slavery was dehumanizing and there is a very fine line between emphasizing the history of slavery and social mobility versus an insensitivity concerning the hardships endured by the slave population who were oppressed.

Great debate guys... Sensitivities however cloud the issues..

Christoffel being "freed" at age 2 was never a functional slave. He never experienced inhumane treatment. He was however born into slavery and the question should be:

How did that fact influence his status?... Was his mixed race heritage a social hindrance?

If these facts were issues affecting social mobility at the time, and Mansell Upham seems to think they were... How did Christoffel manage to hide these facts?... or was he simply of European appearance? Or maybe he was charismatic or eloquent or wealthy?

It would be great if Private User chipped in here and gave us his insight....