Fiksie, Mite en ‘n Onopgeloste Raaisel
Hoe Geskiedenis Verdraai Word
Daar is ‘n groot verskil tussen ‘n historiese roman en historiese werklikheid. Fiksie is ‘n vorm van kuns—dit neem inspirasie uit die verlede, maar bly steeds ‘n skepping van die skrywer. Die probleem ontstaan wanneer fiksie en werklikheid so na aan mekaar lê dat dit bydra tot die ontstaan van ‘n mite — ‘n verhaal wat mense as historiese feit aanvaar, al het dit nooit werklik so gebeur nie. Dit is presies wat ons hier sien ontvou.
Hierdie artikel kyk na drie lae van ‘n verhaal wat afspeel rondom die Kabusie-konsentrasiekamp, Oos-Kaap:
- Die fiksie – hoe ‘n roman historiese karakters en gebeure as inspirasie gebruik.
- Die mite – hoe onakkurate vertellings deur middel van videos en media versprei word en dan emosies manipuleer.
- Die raaisel – die ware onopgeloste vrae wat nog steeds bestaan.
Kom ons begin by die fiksie.
- Fiksie: ‘n Roman as Inspirasie (I.S. Brodrick – Unwanted)
In die voorwoord van Brodrick se boek maak sy dit duidelik: Haar karakters is fiktief, al is haar verhaal gegrond op historiese gebeure en persone. Dit is hoe ‘n storie gebore word, en daar is niks ongewoon daaraan nie. Dit word egter gevaarlik wanneer ‘n roman se fiktiewe elemente toevallig ooreenstem met regte mense en gebeure—veral wanneer daar in die werklikheid nog vrae en onsekerhede oor daardie gebeure bestaan.
My fokus was van die begin af op twee persone wat in die kamp gesterf het onder buitengewone omstandighede – ‘n treinongeluk. Dit maak nie net deel uit van die fiktiewe vertelling nie, daar is in werklikheid twee rekords wat dit bevestig. Hulle kan egter nie sonder enige twyfel aan ‘n spesifieke familie, of enige ongeluk, verbind word nie. Wanneer ‘n roman ‘n storie skep wat hiermee ooreenstem, en mense dit later as waarheid begin aanvaar, kan dit die fondasie van ’n mite word — ‘n storie wat ‘n lewe van sy eie kry en die geskiedenis op ‘n vals manier vorm.
Dis presies hoe ‘n karakter soos Racheltjie de Beer uit ‘n volksverhaal gegroei het tot ‘n figuur wat vir baie mense as ‘n historiese persoon bestaan. Wat begin het as ‘n storie, het ‘n volk se geheue gekoloniseer.
Maar ‘n roman is een ding. Wanneer ‘n persoon met toegang tot ’n gewilde platform, en ‘n gehoor, aktief ‘n mite bevorder, is dit ‘n ander saak. Dit word niks meer as net ‘n leuen.
1.2 Lisa se Verhaal in Unwanted: ‘n Lewe van Verliese
Karl Hochmann is die spil waarom hierdie vertelling draai. Hy speel ‘n hoofrol in beide die weergawes en daar is bewyse en dokumentasie wat sekere aspekte rondom sy bestaan bevestig, maar dit is saamgevleg deur fiksie. Verstrengel en amper versmoor.
Lisa se verhaal in die boek verloop heeltemal anders as die een van Sophia wat ons later na sal kyk. Soos Karl is sy oorspronklik van die omgewing van Macleantown. Haar pa het grond besit, maar hulle was nie welgesteld nie en dit moes tussen ses broers verdeel word. Karl het haar leer ken tydens kerkdienste en later besoeke aan haar ouerhuis. Hy was totaal en al in vervoering met haar skoonheid en het sy intensies baie duidelik gemaak—daar is aanvaar dat hulle sou trou. Dit was tot Karl se ambisie swaarder begin weeg het as sy liefde vir Lisa. Sy drome van ‘n eie plaas het hom na die welgestelde Zuckmann-familie gelei. Die boer het 3 dogters gehad en hy het van sy kant af ook geen geheim van sy eie intensies gemaak nie. Karl moes met sy oudste dogter, Maria, trou.
Karl is ‘n historiese figuur en met navorsing kon ek hom en sy familie bevestig op ‘n plaas—presies soos in die boek. Die verwysing na sy skoonouers en skoonsusters is korrek, so ook na sy eie broers en susters. Die enigste verskil is dat name en vanne effens aangepas is, maar dit is steeds duidelik dieselfde mense. Karl se regte naam was Carl Frederick August Hagemann, getroud met Maria Ziemann (1871–1946). In die boek word sy vrou Maria Zuckmann genoem. Maria is tot ‘n simbool vereenvoudig — ‘n figuur sonder ‘n ware identiteit in die vertelling van die boek, met so min respek geskets dat ek bly was dat dit net fiksie was.
Karl en Maria is getroud in 1891.
Lisa se hart was gebreek, maar is kort daarna getroud met ‘n man van die omgewing en het saam met hom weggetrek op soek na ‘n beter toekoms. Dit het hulle tot in Bethulie gelei. Na ’n paar jaar het die oorlog uitgebreek en Lisa se man, wat deel was van ’n kommando, was reeds maande weg van die huis toe sy gevange geneem is en na die kamp op Bethulie gevat is. Daarna is mense geskuif na ander kampe en so eindig Lisa in Kabusie, ‘n bekende omgewing vir haar.
Op ‘n dag stap Karl verby die kamp en sien vir Lisa. Maar sy was nie alleen nie. Twee klein kindertjies was saam met haar—haar “laatlammetjies”, soos Karl dit beskryf. Hy besoek haar hierna gereeld en bring vir haar groente en vrugte.
Maar toe, ‘n tragedie: Haar jongste kind glip weg en hardloop op die treinspoor om na ‘n trein te kyk. Sy sussie probeer hom keer, maar albei word deur die aankomende trein getref en sterf. Hierdie nuus word aan Karl oorgedra toe hy haar weer wou besoek. Hy is die dag terug na sy plaas sonder om vir Lisa te sien en teen die tyd dat hy sy moed bymekaar kon skraap om haar weer te besoek na die ongeluk, hoor hy dat Lisa self ook kort na haar kinders gesterf het as gevolg van haar verswakte gesondheid.
2. Die Mite: ‘n Verdraaiing van die Verlede
‘n Dokumentêre video wat aanlyn beskikbaar is, is ‘n klassieke voorbeeld van hoe mites geskep word sonder om direk te sê: “Hierdie is die absolute waarheid.” Hy speel met die emosies van die kykers en skets ‘n prentjie van die konsentrasiekampe wat mens se bloed laat kook — maar hy gebruik onakkurate inligting om dit te doen.
Hy vra sy gehoor om hulself in te dink hoe vroue en kinders in Kabusie se kamp in verskeurde tente moes leef, deurweek in die reën, koud deur die winter. Dit skep ‘n beeld van haglike, onmenslike omstandighede wat onmiddellik ‘n emosionele reaksie ontlok. Die probleem? Dit is eenvoudig nie waar nie.
Kabusie se kamp het nie tente gehad nie. Die mense het in geboude strukture met plankvloere, mure en dakke gewoon. Een van die kampbewoners se dagboek, wat selfs in hierdie video aanhaal word, vertel hoe sy haar tent in Bethulie gemis het — nie omdat Kabusie se omstandighede haglik was nie, maar omdat sy haar familie in Bethulie moes agterlaat.
Dit is nie ‘n klein detail nie. Dit wys hoe ‘n mens deur selektiewe vertelling en emosionele manipulering ‘n vals prentjie kan skep. Wanneer ‘n storie gereeld genoeg vertel word en mense dit aanvaar as feit, raak dit deel van die geskiedenis—selfs al is dit nie die waarheid nie.
2.1 Sophia
Wat gebeur as ‘n verhaal oorvertel word en die feite mettertyd vervaag? Soms vermeng mense name, soms word twee verskillende stories een, en soms pas ‘n tragiese liefdesverhaal net té mooi om dit nie te vertel nie.
Sophia hoort eintlik glad nie in hierdie verhaal nie, maar op ‘n manier het sy en Lisa in dieselfde narratief beland—met Karl as die skakel tussen hulle. In die video word ‘n geromantiseerde Karl-en-Sophia-verhaal geskep, terwyl die Karl-en-Lisa-verhaal oor ‘n paar bladsye in ’n boek ‘n veel moeiliker pad gestap het.
Die gewildste weergawe in die volksmond draai om Karl en Sophia. Dit is ‘n klassieke verhaal van liefde en verlies — ‘n tragiese romanse waarin ‘n man en sy geliefde van mekaar geskeur word. Dit word oorgedra met dramatiese ondertone, amper soos ‘n liefdesroman. Maar soos met baie sulke verhale, het die feite plek gemaak vir ‘n goeie storielyn. Volgens die dokumentêre video, was Sophia ‘n jong dogter van Macleantown. Sy en Karl was glo verlief, maar sy het uiteindelik met ene Haasbroek van Bethulie getrou. Toe die oorlog uitbreek en vroue en kinders na kampe geneem is, was sy een van hulle. Haar reis het haar ook na die kamp buite Stutterheim gelei.
En van hier af herhaal die storie tussen die boek en die video homself.
Op ‘n dag stap Karl verby die kamp en sien Sophia. Sy groot liefde. Volgens die verhaal begin hy haar gereeld besoek en bring vir haar vars groente en vrugte.
Ongelukkig verskil die feite: Volgens rekords sterf ‘n Sophia Haasbroek op 6 Junie 1902 in die kamp. Sy was 19 jaar oud. Haar pa, Johannes Bernardus Haasbroek, van die plaas Sleutelpos, Bethulie, was teenwoordig by haar dood en het die dokument onderteken. Haar nooiensvan was Haasbroek en sy is in die Vrystaat gebore en het op haar familieplaas daar grootgeword.
As al hierdie steeds nie sin maak nie, kan ek hier verduidelik: Iemand wat die boek gelees het, het die draad van die fiktiewe verhaal gebruik, maar om die oorvertelling meer geloofwaardig te maak, is die arme Sophia Haasbroek ingetrek. Dit kon net sy wees: Daar is slegs een vrou in die kamp oorlede en as Karl se Lisa daar gesterf het, moes sy ’n graf hê. Dit was onvermydelik. Dit is waar ‘n fiktiewe karakter die eerste keer met ‘n werklike persoon vermeng geraak het.
Verder is daar twee rekords van 2 persone wat in ‘n treinongeluk oorlede is in die argiewe. Petrus Erasmus van Deventer (33) saam met sy dogter, Aletta Johanna van Deventer (5). Hulle is in die Kabusie-kamp se rekords opgeneem. Daar word vertel dat hulle na die oorlog, op pad na hul plaas gesterf het in ‘n ongeluk. Dit is moontlik dat die roman skrywer hierdie informasie gebruik het om so Lisa se twee kinders te skep wat op die treinspoor raakgery is. Die probleem is, daar is twee mense oorlede wat selfs met hul volle name, net eenvoudig nie ‘n plek het nie. Daar is ook geen rekord van ‘n moontlike ongeluk nie.
Dit is ongelukkig nie waar dit eindig nie: Op 24 Augustus 1902 is twee sterftes aangeteken in Bloemfontein. Die een is vir Petrus Erasmus van Deventer (3) en die ander vir sy sussie, Aletta Johanna van Deventer (5). Die oorsaak van hul dood is aangegee as “Railway accident” Is dit alles net toeval?
Hiermee kom ons by die mees kritieke punt: Die ware raaisel.
3. Wat bly oor as die waarheid?
Los ons die roman en die mite eenkant, dan bly daar ‘n werklike vraagstuk oor. Twee mense het in ‘n treinongeluk gesterf. Twee mense met dieselfde name verskyn later in Bloemfontein se rekords waar dit aandui dat hulle gesterf het in ‘n trein ongeluk. Maar daar is geen rekord van so ‘n ongeluk nie.
Dit is nie fiksie nie. Dit is nie ‘n verdraaide storie nie. Dit is ‘n werklike misterie wat ‘n antwoord nodig het.
En hier lê die kern van my soektog.
Wat as die treinongeluk nooit plaasgevind het nie? Hoekom is daar sulke dokumente in die argiewe? Wat as die mense in Bloemfontein glad nie dieselfde mense was nie? Wat as hierdie ‘n ontbrekende stuk geskiedenis is wat verlore gegaan het, en ons nou slegs ‘n mite oor het om die leemte te vul?
Dit is hoe mites ontstaan—deur gissing, aannames en verkeerde interpretasies. Maar dit is ook hoe ons die werklike geskiedenis verloor, omdat ons die waarheid begrawe onder storie vertelling en emosionele reaksies.
Ek soek nie na die waarheid agter ‘n spook nie. Ek soek na die waarheid agter rekords. Wie was hulle?
Fiction, Myth and an Unsolved Mystery
How History Is Distorted
There is a big difference between a historical novel and historical reality. Fiction is a form of art—it takes inspiration from the past, but remains a creation of the author. The problem arises when fiction and reality are so closely intertwined that they contribute to the creation of a myth—a story that people accept as historical fact, even though it never actually happened. That is exactly what we see unfolding here.
This article looks at three layers of a story that unfolds around the Kabusie concentration camp, Eastern Cape:
- The fiction – how a novel uses historical characters and events as inspiration.
- The myth – how inaccurate narratives are spread through videos and media and then manipulate emotions.
- The mystery – the true unsolved questions that still exist.
Let’s start with the fiction.
- Fiction: A Novel as Inspiration (IS Brodrick – Unwanted)
In the preface to Brodrick’s book, she makes this clear: Her characters are fictional, even though her story is based on historical events and people. That’s how a story is born, and there’s nothing unusual about that. However, it becomes dangerous when a novel’s fictional elements coincide with real people and events—especially when in reality there are still questions and uncertainties about those events.
My focus from the beginning was on two people who died in the camp under extraordinary circumstances – a train accident. This is not just part of the fictional narrative, there are actually two records that confirm it. However, they cannot be linked without any doubt to a specific family, or any accident. When a novel creates a story that corresponds to this, and people later come to accept it as truth, it can become the foundation of a myth — a story that takes on a life of its own and shapes history in a false way.
That’s exactly how a character like Racheltjie de Beer grew from a folk tale to a figure that exists for many people as a historical person. What started as a story has colonized a people’s memory.
But a novel is one thing. When a person with access to a popular platform, and an audience, actively promotes a myth, it’s another matter. It becomes nothing more than just a lie.
1.2 Lisa’s Story in Unwanted: A Life of Loss
Karl Hochmann is the pivot around which this narrative revolves. He plays a major role in both versions and there is evidence and documentation that confirms certain aspects of his existence, but it is intertwined with fiction. Tangled and almost suffocated.
Lisa’s story in the book is completely different from the one of Sophia, who we will look at later. Like Karl, she is originally from the Macleantown area. Her father owned land, but they were not wealthy and it had to be divided between six brothers. Karl got to know her during church services and later visits to her parents’ house. He was completely captivated by her beauty and made his intentions very clear—it was assumed that they would marry. That was until Karl’s ambition began to outweigh his love for Lisa. His dreams of his own farm led him to the wealthy Zuckmann family. The farmer had 3 daughters and he, for his part, made no secret of his own intentions. Karl had to marry his eldest daughter, Maria.
Karl is a historical figure, and with research I was able to confirm him and his family on a farm—exactly as in the book. The reference to his parents-in-law and sisters-in-law is correct, as are his own brothers and sisters. The only difference is that the names and surnames have been slightly adjusted, but they are still clearly the same people. Karl’s real name was Carl Frederick August Hagemann, married to Maria Ziemann (1871–1946). In the book, his wife is called Maria Zuckmann. Maria has been reduced to a symbol—a figure with no real identity in the book’s narrative, depicted with so little respect that I was glad it was just fiction.
Karl and Maria were married in 1891.
Lisa was heartbroken, but soon after married a man from the area and moved away with him in search of a better future. This led them to Bethulie. After a few years, the war broke out and Lisa’s husband, who was member of a commando, had already been away from home for months when she was captured and taken to the camp at Bethulie. After that, people were moved to other camps and Lisa ended up in Kabusie, a familiar environment for her.
One day Karl walked past the camp and saw Lisa. But she was not alone. Two small children were with her—her “late lambs,” as Karl describes them. He visited her regularly after this, bringing her vegetables and fruit.
But then, tragedy strikes: Her youngest child slips away and runs onto the tracks to look for a train. His sister tries to stop him, but both are hit by the oncoming train and die. This news is conveyed to Karl when he wants to visit her again. He returns to his farm that day without seeing Lisa and by the time he can muster up the courage to visit her again after the accident, he learns that Lisa herself has also died shortly after her children due to her failing health.
2. The Myth: A Distortion of the Past
A documentary video available online, is a classic example of how myths are created without directly saying: “ This is the absolute truth.” It plays on the emotions of the viewers and paints a picture of the concentration camps that makes one’s blood boil — but it uses inaccurate information to do so.
The narrator asks his audience to imagine how women and children in Kabusie’s camp had to live in tattered tents, soaked in the rain, cold through the winter. It creates an image of dire, inhumane conditions that immediately evokes an emotional response. The problem? It’s simply not true.
Kabusie’s camp did not have tents. The people lived in built structures with plank floors, walls and roofs. One of the camp residents’ diary, which is even quoted in this video, tells how she missed her tent in Bethulie — not because Kabusie’s circumstances were dire, but because she had to leave her family in Bethulie behind.
This is no small detail. It shows how selective storytelling and emotional manipulation can create a false picture. When a story is told often enough and people accept it as fact, it becomes part of history—even if it’s not the truth.
2.1 Sophia
What happens when a story is retold and the facts fade over time? Sometimes people mix up names, sometimes two different stories become one, and sometimes a tragic love story is just too good not to tell.
Sophia doesn’t really belong in this story at all, but in a way she and Lisa ended up in the same narrative—with Karl as the link between them. In the video, a romanticized Karl-and-Sophia story is created, while the Karl-and-Lisa story took a much more difficult path over a few pages in a book.
The most popular version in the vernacular revolves around Karl and Sophia. It is a classic tale of love and loss — a tragic romance in which a man and his beloved are torn apart. It is told with dramatic undertones, almost like a romance novel. But as with many such stories, the facts made way for a good storyline. According to the documentary video, Sophia was a young girl from Macleantown. She and Karl were apparently in love, but she eventually married a man named Haasbroek from Bethulie. When the war broke out and women and children were taken to camps, she was one of them. Her journey also led her to the camp outside Stutterheim.
And from here the story between the book and the video repeats itself.
One day Karl walks past the camp and sees Sophia. His great love. According to the story, he begins to visit her regularly and brings her fresh vegetables and fruit.
Unfortunately, the facts differ: According to records, a Sophia Haasbroek died in the camp on 6 June 1902. She was 19 years old. Her father, Johannes Bernardus Haasbroek, of the farm Sleutelpos, Bethulie, was present at her death and signed the document. Her maiden name was Haasbroek and she was born in the Free State and grew up on her family farm there.
If all this still doesn’t make sense, let me explain here: Someone who read the book used the thread of the fictional story, but to make the retelling more believable, poor Sophia Haasbroek was brought in. It could only be her: There was only one woman who died in the camp and if Karl’s Lisa died there, she had to have a grave. It was inevitable. This is where a fictional character first became mixed with a real person.
Furthermore, there are two records of 2 people who died in a train accident in the archives. Petrus Erasmus van Deventer (33) with his daughter, Aletta Johanna van Deventer (5). They were recorded in the Kabusie camp records. It is said that after the war, they died in an accident on their way to their farm. It is possible that the novelist used this information to create Lisa’s two children who were hit on the train tracks. The problem is, there are two people who died who, even with their full names, simply have no place. There is also no record of a possible accident.
Unfortunately, this is not where it ends: On 24 August 1902, two deaths were recorded in Bloemfontein. One was for Petrus Erasmus van Deventer (3) and the other for his sister, Aletta Johanna van Deventer (5). The cause of their death was given as “Railway accident”. Is this all just a coincidence?
This brings us to the most critical point: The real mystery.
3. What remains but the truth?
Leaving the novel and the myth aside, a real question remains. Two people died in a train accident. Two people with the same names later appear in Bloemfontein records indicating that they died in a train accident. But there is no record of such an accident.
This is not fiction. This is not a twisted story. This is a real mystery that needs an answer.
And herein lies the crux of my search.
What if the train accident never happened? Why are there such documents in the archives? What if the people in Bloemfontein were not the same people at all? What if this is a missing piece of history that has been lost, and we now only have a myth left to fill the void?
This is how myths are created—through conjecture, assumptions, and misinterpretations. But it is also how we lose real history, because we bury the truth under storytelling and emotional reactions.
I’m not looking for the truth behind a ghost. I’m looking for the truth behind records. Who were they?
