I am very happy that I chose this focus out of the basket. I knew immediately that I could have a lot of fun with this connection to the book and really express my thoughts.
A common psychoanalytic question is 'how symbolic is the imagery in the work?'
My answer in the form of examples in regards to the book PWB is as follows:
The white flowers taken over by African dirt. This is important in showing the reader that even the beautiful pure things are not meant to survive the harshness of the African Terrain.
Rachel, the "white rabbit". Like mentioned in class, the rabbit is often a creature symbol of trickery and deceit. We have yet to see Rachel be either of these things, but as a symbol, the white rabbit represents rarity, trickery, and perhaps bad luck.
The "overkill" of fish, dead and left to rot on the river bank. The imagery o dead fish is symbolic of the Father's goal in Africa. His goal is to help "enlighten" the people, And yet we
predict he will lead their downfall. His attempts at creating an easier and better life for them ultimately harms them. The fish is an example of the father trying to do a good thing, feed them, but instead waste fish and plague the village air with the scent of rotting fish (symbolic of death). I think his massacre of the fish is also symbolic of his lack of foresight and understanding of Africa. Back home the fish would have been put on ice and preserved, but he fails to remember this detail and his fish fall victim to the sweltering African heat.
The fake ivory hand mirror. This is symbolic of Rachel's lack of depth. She is concern solely with her material goods and strongly detests sharing with her sister. The facade of her mirror accurately mirrors her shallow ideals and her lack of "true honest" depth.
The betty crocker cake mix meltdown. This is symbolic of Orleanna's loss of control over her surroundings and sense of adaptability. She was not prepared for what the heat would do to the cake mix. Her meltdown displays her first moment of "losing her cool" it brings us far deeper than just the loss
of the cake mix. Here we realize that she is losing her motherly control. She realizes she no longer has the means to provide for her daughters in the manner that they are used to.
Anatole's face scarring. This section where his face is described is symbolic of Rachel's lack of consideration for things beyond physical perfection. She goes on to tell the reader that the African people seem content with scars as a decoration. Unlike her, the African people know that scars often represent challenges or hard circumstances that have been overcome. Perhaps in many instances those scars were obtained in near death experiences and therefore she has nothing to relate to. Her reaction to the scars, and the description of Anatole's face is symbolic of her innocence and lack of empathy.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Monday, April 15, 2013
Heart of Darkness vs. Apocalypse Now
I think we all found the movie Apocalypse Now to be quite entertaining. There were many scenes in the movie that led us to think "wow the movie has dead ringer parts to the story". While some ideas were similar, many aspects of the movie AN were
different from HoD. The main variation I would like to focus on is our relationship and feelings towards "the oppressed". In HoD the reader can feel nothing but pity and sadness for the Africans in the Congo. They are portrayed as shadowy figures who are brutally and ruthlessly worked to the death, if not killed before then. When reading HoD, the reader is allowed to manifest feelings of sadness towards the people. We almost want to save them.
When watching Apocalypse Now, I formed and entirely different opinion towards the "oppressed", if we can even call the Vietnamese in AN oppressed. We can see
the majority of them as victims of war and brutality, but as the US was not physically trying to govern and rule them in AN I do not see them as oppressed. However, As Eric mentioned in his blog, AN may have been a form of Vietnam War propaganda, in which case it would only be logical that we don't relate to the "oppressed" in the way we do in HoD. In the scene where the Vietnamese girl runs in the plaza to throw a grenade in the US chopper, viewers are immediately resentful of the Vietnamese. While this particular scene does not translate into a scene from HoD I think it is still very significant. An important difference between HoD and AN is our feelings and connection to the oppressed. I personally did not relate and want to save the Vietnamese. In HoD I Wanted to see the Congolese freed and yet in AN I wanted to see the Vietnamese lose as much as the US did. As a form of propaganda, and as part of a war film it makes sense that we cannot relate to the Vietnamese, they are intended to be the enemy. But I think it is important to realize that AN is missing the key component of compassion towards the "oppressed" that really drew us into the book HoD.
different from HoD. The main variation I would like to focus on is our relationship and feelings towards "the oppressed". In HoD the reader can feel nothing but pity and sadness for the Africans in the Congo. They are portrayed as shadowy figures who are brutally and ruthlessly worked to the death, if not killed before then. When reading HoD, the reader is allowed to manifest feelings of sadness towards the people. We almost want to save them.
When watching Apocalypse Now, I formed and entirely different opinion towards the "oppressed", if we can even call the Vietnamese in AN oppressed. We can see
the majority of them as victims of war and brutality, but as the US was not physically trying to govern and rule them in AN I do not see them as oppressed. However, As Eric mentioned in his blog, AN may have been a form of Vietnam War propaganda, in which case it would only be logical that we don't relate to the "oppressed" in the way we do in HoD. In the scene where the Vietnamese girl runs in the plaza to throw a grenade in the US chopper, viewers are immediately resentful of the Vietnamese. While this particular scene does not translate into a scene from HoD I think it is still very significant. An important difference between HoD and AN is our feelings and connection to the oppressed. I personally did not relate and want to save the Vietnamese. In HoD I Wanted to see the Congolese freed and yet in AN I wanted to see the Vietnamese lose as much as the US did. As a form of propaganda, and as part of a war film it makes sense that we cannot relate to the Vietnamese, they are intended to be the enemy. But I think it is important to realize that AN is missing the key component of compassion towards the "oppressed" that really drew us into the book HoD.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Reading Difficulties Pages 102-118
"In a few days the Eldorado Expedition went into the patient wilderness, that closed upon it as the sea closes over a diver. Long afterwards the news came that all the donkeys were dead. I know nothing as to the fate of the less valuable animals. They, no doubt, like the rest of us, found what they deserved. I did not inquire. I was then rather excited at the prospect of meeting Kurtz very soon. When I say very soon I mean it comparatively. It was just two months from the day we left the creek when we came to the bank below Kurtz's station"(Page 105, 3rd paragraph). In this section the narrator talks about the fact that the donkeys of the Eldorado Expedition all died. This part confused me because it jumps around a lot and it was unclear to me why this particular section is significant? Also when the narrator says the part "They, no doubt, like the rest of us, found what they deserved", he is seemingly referring to the Donkeys, but the language of "they found what they deserved" is difficult to decipher. This section could mean many different things and while the language itself was not difficult to understand the meaning of the section as a whole was.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Heart of Darkness Quote
"The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much" (Page 70).
I believe that this quote is the thesis of the book. In this quote Joseph Conrad completely captures the essence of
the fight for domination of the Congo. In most instances throughout history land was conquered or sought after by stronger countries because the desired land was inhabited by people thought to be lesser beings. Why would there be any room for moral conflict when capturing land if it's peoples are "less than human"? This quote captures the idea that strong countries tend to oppose any group of people who look, behave or seem different from it's people. Humans tend to fear things they do not understand or can't relate to. Conquest is by no means a pretty thing. Conquest is often sparked by fear or greed, as noted in not only this book but in King Leopold's ghost as well. While some of the goals behind conquest may be noble, the abuse of land, resources and people is "not a pretty thing". This quote wants it's readers to understand that even the slightest variation in culture or appearance could be enough motivation to sparks a countries desire for conquest.
I believe that this quote is the thesis of the book. In this quote Joseph Conrad completely captures the essence of
the fight for domination of the Congo. In most instances throughout history land was conquered or sought after by stronger countries because the desired land was inhabited by people thought to be lesser beings. Why would there be any room for moral conflict when capturing land if it's peoples are "less than human"? This quote captures the idea that strong countries tend to oppose any group of people who look, behave or seem different from it's people. Humans tend to fear things they do not understand or can't relate to. Conquest is by no means a pretty thing. Conquest is often sparked by fear or greed, as noted in not only this book but in King Leopold's ghost as well. While some of the goals behind conquest may be noble, the abuse of land, resources and people is "not a pretty thing". This quote wants it's readers to understand that even the slightest variation in culture or appearance could be enough motivation to sparks a countries desire for conquest.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Chapter 17: No Man Is a Stranger
I am posting this from my iPhone so prepare for spelling errors to run rampant. I did the first half of chapter 17 for our presentation tomorrow. The first half of this chapter extends most of it's substance to illustrating the slow but steady downfall of Leopold's control over the congo (I know finally!).
The first section of this chapter highlights the movement of "African Testimony". The court system in
the Congo during that time was white ruled. White men and many African de facto officials didn't fear the legal system because it was inefficient and unjust. KL basically created a Commission of Inquiry of Rule. He sent for three commissioners who would make it their sole purpose to listen to the horrifying testimonies of the African people in the Congo. For the first time African people in the Congo had a "voice" and a chance to tell of the atrocities of king Leopold and his followers...or so they thought. It turns out that the general reports (reports were never written in detail) never were read beyond the commissioners themselves and were locked in the state archive in Brussels until 1980.
The next section of the chapter highlights Leopold's intense infatuation with France and slow building hate for all things Belgian. In his older years he traveled abroad by ship or private railway cars, spoiling Caroline with luxurious homes designed after French architecture.
Thanks to the campaign of morel and the commission inquiry reports given
to Leopold and then leaked, he was being pressured to extract himself from
the Congo. Due to the fact Leopold was becoming increasingly pressured to release his grasp over Congo he decided he would sell it and for a handsome price. He ended up selling it to Belgium in exchange for them taking over 150 million dollars in debt and paying him 50 million in gratitude and financing his building projects including the Grand Leopoldian Center for World Conferences.
Next in the chapter we learn about a man named William Morrison, a fierce ally to William Sheppard and loyal friend to Morel. Morrison encouraged many fellow ministers to speak out about the Congo atrocities. At this time missionaries and Presbyterians began being watched closely for Leopold had issued a decree mandating 5 year jail time for any calumny against a Congo Official. During the end of Leopold's rules the Compagnie du Kasai was trying to extract as much rubber as possible. The Kuba people in this region started rising against the rubber terror. The Kuban people reaped havoc on white trading posts and eventually 180 of them were killed. Sheppard wrote a story detailing how their lives went from peaceful to horrifying due to the rubber boom. The Compagnie due Kasai was outraged and exploded on Morrison and Sheppard demanding a retraction. Morrison and
Sheppard were legally vulnerable since they printed the article in the Congo which morel re-printed in Britain. Soon British vice consul started investigating and the Kasais stocks started to plummet. The company decided to legally punish Sheppard and Morrison to which they replied with a statement that they would rather go to jail than pay the fines. Morrison and Sheppard were ready to go to trial with more than a dozen Kubans by their side ready to testify in their defense. Morel called his friend and ally Emile Vandernelde and asked for a recommendation for a for a good lawyer for the men. Vandernelde revealed that he was an attorney and decided to take the case himself Pro Bono. He was a leading figure in European Democratic Socialism. When criticized by Belgians for traveling all the way to Africa to defend a couple of foreigners he replied by saying "No man is a stranger in the court of justice".
My Quiz Questions are:
1.What is the significance of the title?(Hint, last line)
2.What happened to the testimonies given by the Africans? And what does this show about the integrity or power of the commission?
3. Why was Sheppard's story about the Kubans such an outrage? What was the resulting effect of his story?
(The remaining quiz questions on Enlly's Blog Post)
The first section of this chapter highlights the movement of "African Testimony". The court system in
the Congo during that time was white ruled. White men and many African de facto officials didn't fear the legal system because it was inefficient and unjust. KL basically created a Commission of Inquiry of Rule. He sent for three commissioners who would make it their sole purpose to listen to the horrifying testimonies of the African people in the Congo. For the first time African people in the Congo had a "voice" and a chance to tell of the atrocities of king Leopold and his followers...or so they thought. It turns out that the general reports (reports were never written in detail) never were read beyond the commissioners themselves and were locked in the state archive in Brussels until 1980.
The next section of the chapter highlights Leopold's intense infatuation with France and slow building hate for all things Belgian. In his older years he traveled abroad by ship or private railway cars, spoiling Caroline with luxurious homes designed after French architecture.
Thanks to the campaign of morel and the commission inquiry reports given
to Leopold and then leaked, he was being pressured to extract himself from
the Congo. Due to the fact Leopold was becoming increasingly pressured to release his grasp over Congo he decided he would sell it and for a handsome price. He ended up selling it to Belgium in exchange for them taking over 150 million dollars in debt and paying him 50 million in gratitude and financing his building projects including the Grand Leopoldian Center for World Conferences.
Next in the chapter we learn about a man named William Morrison, a fierce ally to William Sheppard and loyal friend to Morel. Morrison encouraged many fellow ministers to speak out about the Congo atrocities. At this time missionaries and Presbyterians began being watched closely for Leopold had issued a decree mandating 5 year jail time for any calumny against a Congo Official. During the end of Leopold's rules the Compagnie du Kasai was trying to extract as much rubber as possible. The Kuba people in this region started rising against the rubber terror. The Kuban people reaped havoc on white trading posts and eventually 180 of them were killed. Sheppard wrote a story detailing how their lives went from peaceful to horrifying due to the rubber boom. The Compagnie due Kasai was outraged and exploded on Morrison and Sheppard demanding a retraction. Morrison and
Sheppard were legally vulnerable since they printed the article in the Congo which morel re-printed in Britain. Soon British vice consul started investigating and the Kasais stocks started to plummet. The company decided to legally punish Sheppard and Morrison to which they replied with a statement that they would rather go to jail than pay the fines. Morrison and Sheppard were ready to go to trial with more than a dozen Kubans by their side ready to testify in their defense. Morel called his friend and ally Emile Vandernelde and asked for a recommendation for a for a good lawyer for the men. Vandernelde revealed that he was an attorney and decided to take the case himself Pro Bono. He was a leading figure in European Democratic Socialism. When criticized by Belgians for traveling all the way to Africa to defend a couple of foreigners he replied by saying "No man is a stranger in the court of justice".
My Quiz Questions are:
1.What is the significance of the title?(Hint, last line)
2.What happened to the testimonies given by the Africans? And what does this show about the integrity or power of the commission?
3. Why was Sheppard's story about the Kubans such an outrage? What was the resulting effect of his story?
(The remaining quiz questions on Enlly's Blog Post)
Thursday, February 28, 2013
"Psychology of the Seriously Screwed Up"
When reading history books I tend to find myself dozing off into the world of my own creative imagination. While history books are designed to be factual, specific, and generally a timeline of events, they are usually everything BUT creative in terms of intrigue and excitement. At least in my experience. King Leopold's Ghost does not follow this generalization. This may be the first historically accurate book I have read that has held my interest from day one. This may be because the book is focused on analyzing the psychological effects of conquest and colonization on rulers and explorers, or maybe because the book seems more like a fictional adventure novel than a historical account.
This book accurately and uniquely allows the reader to step into that time period and understand why the people who invaded the Congo did what they did, and shows us how screwed up they were from a mental standpoint. This book illustrated to me that with exploration not only comes financial wealth, but wealth in mental insanity and instability as well. King Leopold would be considered in modern terms an Egotistic, narcissistic, tyrannical ignorant ruler. His exploration and conquest within this book is not highlighted by the rewards he reaped, but by the mental toll and corruption placed within him and his "regime". The atrocities committed by him were great, and their attempted "justification" is in a way established within this book through the assessment of King Leopold's psyche.
It is made clear in the book that rulers of that time were often forced to fulfill a moral or physical obligation to their family and kingdom. Readers of this book are well aware that Leopold's upbringing played a significant part in his "downfall" as a ruler. Every ruler has the potential to be successful and powerful, but Leopold instead succumbed to his greed and desire to prove himself to his family. Throughout the entire book his moral corruption and blindness is illuminated and the different personalities and moral conflicts of other characters such as Stanley or Sheppard are highlighted as well. This book not only accounts for a large part of history in the sense of "what was accomplished and written down for generations to learn about" but also the "forgotten things". The things that people should remember about history but aren't given the chance to. Rarely does a book allow the reader to enter the minds of its subjects and in a way give the subjects a chance to "rationalize or justify" their actions.
Through this book it is made clear that rulers often have ulterior motives than just doing "what is right by the people". In our own country as well as foreign countries, currently and in past history, greed, hunger for power, and desire for conquest and famous recognition runs rampant within a leadership role. Leaders often bear a psychological toll and decay as a result of their exploits. Whether their legacy is remembered in history, their conquests or their achievements, rarely is their state of psychological stability noted. This book opened my eyes to the knowledge that there is a whole other side to history that often goes un-acknowledged. While understanding the psychology and reasoning behind the decisions of Leopold and the other subjects of the book has helped me to understand their real motives, it does not justify their actions in any way shape or form. The account of this book allows the reader to understand exactly HOW some of these men were able to commit or witness the atrocities produced in the Congo and WHY the men did what they did. It takes important characters in history and changes them from "characters" to relatable (or at least understandable and analyzable) people.
This book accurately and uniquely allows the reader to step into that time period and understand why the people who invaded the Congo did what they did, and shows us how screwed up they were from a mental standpoint. This book illustrated to me that with exploration not only comes financial wealth, but wealth in mental insanity and instability as well. King Leopold would be considered in modern terms an Egotistic, narcissistic, tyrannical ignorant ruler. His exploration and conquest within this book is not highlighted by the rewards he reaped, but by the mental toll and corruption placed within him and his "regime". The atrocities committed by him were great, and their attempted "justification" is in a way established within this book through the assessment of King Leopold's psyche.
It is made clear in the book that rulers of that time were often forced to fulfill a moral or physical obligation to their family and kingdom. Readers of this book are well aware that Leopold's upbringing played a significant part in his "downfall" as a ruler. Every ruler has the potential to be successful and powerful, but Leopold instead succumbed to his greed and desire to prove himself to his family. Throughout the entire book his moral corruption and blindness is illuminated and the different personalities and moral conflicts of other characters such as Stanley or Sheppard are highlighted as well. This book not only accounts for a large part of history in the sense of "what was accomplished and written down for generations to learn about" but also the "forgotten things". The things that people should remember about history but aren't given the chance to. Rarely does a book allow the reader to enter the minds of its subjects and in a way give the subjects a chance to "rationalize or justify" their actions.
Through this book it is made clear that rulers often have ulterior motives than just doing "what is right by the people". In our own country as well as foreign countries, currently and in past history, greed, hunger for power, and desire for conquest and famous recognition runs rampant within a leadership role. Leaders often bear a psychological toll and decay as a result of their exploits. Whether their legacy is remembered in history, their conquests or their achievements, rarely is their state of psychological stability noted. This book opened my eyes to the knowledge that there is a whole other side to history that often goes un-acknowledged. While understanding the psychology and reasoning behind the decisions of Leopold and the other subjects of the book has helped me to understand their real motives, it does not justify their actions in any way shape or form. The account of this book allows the reader to understand exactly HOW some of these men were able to commit or witness the atrocities produced in the Congo and WHY the men did what they did. It takes important characters in history and changes them from "characters" to relatable (or at least understandable and analyzable) people.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
The Response of Western Nations Q. 6
Do you think that Western nations, such as Great Britain, France, Germany, and the U.S. should respond differently to atrocities around the world today? Should they have done more? Why?
I think these particular questions are difficult to answer. I think that the United States, as a whole, should play less of the role of "global peace-keeper". Over the years we have received the unspoken title of world policeman as a nation. While in past times we have been in a position of power and wealth, currently, our nation is broken. Our economy has rapidly declined over the past 10 years and we have countless problems on our own soil. While there are atrocities taking place all over the world, it is not solely the job of the United States to protect against and end these atrocities. As for other Western nations such as Great Britain, France and Germany, they should be taking greater efforts to protect against global atrocities on soil they own or occupy. Part of being a world power is taking responsibility for one's people and protecting those who are unable to protect themselves. Like Alberto mentioned in his blog post, if countries such as Great Britain, France and Germany want to take responsibility for the land they own in different countries, then they need to step up their efforts to protect against atrocities against their people. There are of course examples in history where Western nations were unable to protect against atrocities in their own motherland. For example, taken from the Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide by Leslie Alan Horvitz, the Oradour-Sur-Glane massacre took place in France during WWII and the French were powerless to stop it. The Oradour massacre was the worst atrocity to take place on French Soil. The Massacre took place 10 days after D-Day, before French Soil was re-taken by France and the Allied Armed Forces. In summary of the Oradour events, the French town of Tulle was recognized for killing and mutilating the bodies of 62 Nazi Soldiers who had surrendered themselves to the resistance. The SS commanding officer of that section of France found out about the massacre of Nazi soldiers and with the help of the mayor, destroyed the entire town. French men were hanged, an approximation of 500 French citizens were killed in Tulle as the response of the SS officer. Had Great Britain or the United States tried to intervene in this situation, the massacre could have been stopped. The atrocity committed by the German Officer and his followers did not take place over a day, but over the period of a week or more. Whether or not Great Britain or the US were able to step in does not matter, the question is whether they should have or not. I think that it is incredibly difficult to judge the level of commitment Western Nations have to other countries or territory. I think that if a nation has the power to aid those victim of atrocity then they should. But it is not our job, or our nations job, to dictate how another country should respond to a global crisis. Each atrocity has its own specific details, moral conflict, and question of who should step in and when. It is challenging to label how a country should respond to individual and unique situations.
This is an image of a building in Oradour-Sur-Glane after the Nazi massacre and destruction. Atrocities will never stop occurring, sometimes they are unstoppable, but whenever Western nations are in a position to provide aid they should.
I think these particular questions are difficult to answer. I think that the United States, as a whole, should play less of the role of "global peace-keeper". Over the years we have received the unspoken title of world policeman as a nation. While in past times we have been in a position of power and wealth, currently, our nation is broken. Our economy has rapidly declined over the past 10 years and we have countless problems on our own soil. While there are atrocities taking place all over the world, it is not solely the job of the United States to protect against and end these atrocities. As for other Western nations such as Great Britain, France and Germany, they should be taking greater efforts to protect against global atrocities on soil they own or occupy. Part of being a world power is taking responsibility for one's people and protecting those who are unable to protect themselves. Like Alberto mentioned in his blog post, if countries such as Great Britain, France and Germany want to take responsibility for the land they own in different countries, then they need to step up their efforts to protect against atrocities against their people. There are of course examples in history where Western nations were unable to protect against atrocities in their own motherland. For example, taken from the Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide by Leslie Alan Horvitz, the Oradour-Sur-Glane massacre took place in France during WWII and the French were powerless to stop it. The Oradour massacre was the worst atrocity to take place on French Soil. The Massacre took place 10 days after D-Day, before French Soil was re-taken by France and the Allied Armed Forces. In summary of the Oradour events, the French town of Tulle was recognized for killing and mutilating the bodies of 62 Nazi Soldiers who had surrendered themselves to the resistance. The SS commanding officer of that section of France found out about the massacre of Nazi soldiers and with the help of the mayor, destroyed the entire town. French men were hanged, an approximation of 500 French citizens were killed in Tulle as the response of the SS officer. Had Great Britain or the United States tried to intervene in this situation, the massacre could have been stopped. The atrocity committed by the German Officer and his followers did not take place over a day, but over the period of a week or more. Whether or not Great Britain or the US were able to step in does not matter, the question is whether they should have or not. I think that it is incredibly difficult to judge the level of commitment Western Nations have to other countries or territory. I think that if a nation has the power to aid those victim of atrocity then they should. But it is not our job, or our nations job, to dictate how another country should respond to a global crisis. Each atrocity has its own specific details, moral conflict, and question of who should step in and when. It is challenging to label how a country should respond to individual and unique situations.
This is an image of a building in Oradour-Sur-Glane after the Nazi massacre and destruction. Atrocities will never stop occurring, sometimes they are unstoppable, but whenever Western nations are in a position to provide aid they should.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)