VV(13): Enters Weismann

[jbor]

----------
>From: Michel Ryckx <michel.ryckx at freebel.net>


> Actually, more logical would be that Willem Van Wijk is South African of Dutch
> descent:  'Die lood van die Goevernement sal nou op julle smelt', (which is
not
> Dutch but Afrikaaner language) at 232.28 and again at 233.18.  There's also
talk
> of 'Abraham Morris [who] crossed the Orange' (231.17), which was the 'normal'
> movement of ambitious Southafrican Boers.  South Africa was heavily interested
in
> the Sudwest, and continued to occupy Namibia --though it was supposed to be a
> protectorate under the UN-- till a few years ago.

Thanks for the details and you're right. It is mentioned that Van Wijk is a
"Boer" at 231.15. And, actually, the Union of South Africa (comprising Cape
Colony, Natal, the Transvaal, and the Orange River Colony) was a dominion
under the British Crown from 1910-1934, with equal status for people of
British and Dutch descent: cf. Weissmann's references to "the Union" and the
British "at Upington" at 251. So, South-West Africa (or Namibia) which "had
once been a German colony" (230.28), is now a mandate of "the government of
the Cape" (230.32). It's all there in the text.

That Afrikaaner sentence btw is Van Wijk quoting the words of Sergeant van
Niekirk as reported by the Bondels -- a story which has probably "spread to
the Portuguese frontier" (232.28: this would be Angola?) -- so now it seems
to me that it is the "ambitious Boers" from the Orange River colony who are
instigating this "rebellion" against the local (British/Dutch?)
administration in South-West Africa. And the "Bondelswaartz", who I assume
are Hereros and Hottentots, and the "Veldschoendragers and Witboois from up
north" (232.12), have been co-opted to fight on the side of these rebels.

> But: one could easily say it is one of those remarkable mirror
> effects mr. Pynchon uses constantly: re-enacting circumstances of 1904, set
during
> a carnival.  There are just too many echoes of the genocide, apart from the
slow
> unravelling
> of what really happened in 1904.

Yes indeed. But the mirror reflections and the actual history surely aren't
contradictory. Foppl is the *only* source for what "really happened in
1904". But when Kurt arrives at the villa Foppl says "to hell with them" and
decides to hold Fasching (234.4 up), not a reenactment of 1904 as such. In
fact, I get the impression that it's Vera -- V -- who has urged Foppl and
the other guests along, playing head-games with them all, so she can be
"given" *her* "1904". (247.9)

I don't know that the "political chaos howl[ing] outside" (235.19) the villa
in 1922 and the colonial genocide of 1904 are actually being connected
anywhere except in Foppl's mind. and, indeed, those bomb-dropping bi-planes
come from "the direction of the Union" (276.4). They're not German at all.

best