1. Idea or question that is lingering after your discussion?
The question that is still bothering me is why no one believed Lefranc or Williams when they spoke up about the true happenings in Africa. What we discussed in our group which did answer this question for me was a) people were worried about losing their status if they spoke up and b) everyone was part of the system. It is not so much the fact that the support given wasn't evidence enough. I am just very disturbed that no one spoke up. Just because it was going to determine someone's status or the fact that no one was strong enough to speak up, someone should have paid more attention to Williams open letter and Lefranc's comments. However, from the text I can understand why no one spoke up against Leopold.
2. Evaluate your small group discussion. What worked well? How can you improve?
I found that all the questions were very similar and our group's discussion did not expand enough beyond the few questions that were brought up. Along with that, not everyone participated. The lap tops were a little distracting and no one was engaged in the discussion. It seemed very forced and we all felt that if there was a discussion leader it would have been a lot better. I think we have a lot to improve on and it starts with people just all being focused on the discussion. It really helps if everyone is involved and willing to participate. Then, it is important to dig deeper than the average response which is what we failed to do today. We answered the questions, but we did not analyze them as much. I think the small discussions will improve when they are graded and lead by a discussion leader.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
King Leopold's Ghost pgs. 33-60 Quotes
King Leopold: "For him, colonies existed for one purpose: to make him and his country rich" (38) and "His drive for colonies, however, was shaped by a desire no only for money but for power" (39).
Henry Morton Stanley: "A Welshman masquerading as a native-born United States citizen, Stanley was both the Anglo and the American of this Anglo-American Expedition" (48) and "Stanley was always uncomfortable with anyone whose talents might outshine his own" (49).
Affirming/challenging:
affirming - "It is frustrating that the only African voices we hear are those recorded by Stanley" (53).
My reactions to this section:
It was mostly all biographical and commentary on Stanley's expedition. It was building King Leopold's background so that the audience can see where he came from and why he has the goals he has. He is very intelligent in his ways of going about conquering Africa. He knows just how to get his way. The sad truth is that he should be doing the things he is saying in order to get the African territory. That of money and power turn to greed which is the ultimate gain in the book. This is the reason Leopold wants to conquer Africa. He needs to make his country rich and powerful. It was creative of him to get all the explorers in one room to expand this idea of him. Thus, Stanley's journey came into the book. I don't like Stanley. The fact that he did not keep record of all the deaths on his expedition and the way he treated his men while they were suffering. Also, his stories I don't know whether or not to trust. This goes back to his biography. After all, he is just trying to become famous. Overall, the reading is still continuing to be background before he dive right into the Congo.
Henry Morton Stanley: "A Welshman masquerading as a native-born United States citizen, Stanley was both the Anglo and the American of this Anglo-American Expedition" (48) and "Stanley was always uncomfortable with anyone whose talents might outshine his own" (49).
Affirming/challenging:
affirming - "It is frustrating that the only African voices we hear are those recorded by Stanley" (53).
My reactions to this section:
It was mostly all biographical and commentary on Stanley's expedition. It was building King Leopold's background so that the audience can see where he came from and why he has the goals he has. He is very intelligent in his ways of going about conquering Africa. He knows just how to get his way. The sad truth is that he should be doing the things he is saying in order to get the African territory. That of money and power turn to greed which is the ultimate gain in the book. This is the reason Leopold wants to conquer Africa. He needs to make his country rich and powerful. It was creative of him to get all the explorers in one room to expand this idea of him. Thus, Stanley's journey came into the book. I don't like Stanley. The fact that he did not keep record of all the deaths on his expedition and the way he treated his men while they were suffering. Also, his stories I don't know whether or not to trust. This goes back to his biography. After all, he is just trying to become famous. Overall, the reading is still continuing to be background before he dive right into the Congo.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Ghost pgs. 1-32
Discussion Questions:
1. Why was Henry Morton Stanley's back story so important and how does it emphasize where the book is going?
The introduction and prologue both mentioned the fact that the quest in Africa was one sided which veered all the further documentation to be only partial information. Because of this fact, Stanley's back story was so important because he was proven to be a liar. His overall goal was to achieve fame, not gain the facts from both parties. If David Livingston lived to make his return to England I would argue that he would have had a different story to tell about Africa than that of which Stanley told. Furthermore, looking at the prologue Affonso, the only African voice, had an entirely different outlook on life in Africa than the Europeans when they came and conducted the slave trade. This alone shows that the books objective is to give two sides of the story while the world has only seen one view. This will give people a better perspective of what actually happened. It is pure ignorance to only be educated on one side of a story. Therefore, in this book the African's story will be told and compared to the Europeans to determine what actually went on during these times.
2. As seen in the book so far, how have human choices, specifically regarding the Congo and Africa in the beginning, impacted the world?
Both of these events, the Congo and the first exploration of Africa resulting in the slave trade, lasted for multiple decades because the issue was never resolved until a much later point in time. They both were not only very historical events, but they set up historical events to come far off in the future. The slave trade for example, set up the civil rights movement in the 1960s. These events both are linked to the same roots being that of Europeans trying to better their own countries through materialism and that of trying to change the basic ways of African civilizations into their own making. These human choices to go into these perfectly adequate civilizations for their own needs, to only benefit themselves, were not positive at all for anyone. These human choices set up the world for their future issues at hand and caused a lot of immoral practices among these civilizations in which harmed them. Exploration is a curiosity and should be respected, however, these groups of people disregarded that respect and caused brutal death. They not only caused death, but unnecessary new issues to be dealt with in order to maintain some sense of world peace, if it is at all obtainable. Their specific choices set the world up for racism, what are moral values, and countries working together or against each other on different issues. The one simple choice of exploring Africa resulted in a magnitude of repercussions for the rest of the world in much later years to come.
1. Why was Henry Morton Stanley's back story so important and how does it emphasize where the book is going?
The introduction and prologue both mentioned the fact that the quest in Africa was one sided which veered all the further documentation to be only partial information. Because of this fact, Stanley's back story was so important because he was proven to be a liar. His overall goal was to achieve fame, not gain the facts from both parties. If David Livingston lived to make his return to England I would argue that he would have had a different story to tell about Africa than that of which Stanley told. Furthermore, looking at the prologue Affonso, the only African voice, had an entirely different outlook on life in Africa than the Europeans when they came and conducted the slave trade. This alone shows that the books objective is to give two sides of the story while the world has only seen one view. This will give people a better perspective of what actually happened. It is pure ignorance to only be educated on one side of a story. Therefore, in this book the African's story will be told and compared to the Europeans to determine what actually went on during these times.
2. As seen in the book so far, how have human choices, specifically regarding the Congo and Africa in the beginning, impacted the world?
Both of these events, the Congo and the first exploration of Africa resulting in the slave trade, lasted for multiple decades because the issue was never resolved until a much later point in time. They both were not only very historical events, but they set up historical events to come far off in the future. The slave trade for example, set up the civil rights movement in the 1960s. These events both are linked to the same roots being that of Europeans trying to better their own countries through materialism and that of trying to change the basic ways of African civilizations into their own making. These human choices to go into these perfectly adequate civilizations for their own needs, to only benefit themselves, were not positive at all for anyone. These human choices set up the world for their future issues at hand and caused a lot of immoral practices among these civilizations in which harmed them. Exploration is a curiosity and should be respected, however, these groups of people disregarded that respect and caused brutal death. They not only caused death, but unnecessary new issues to be dealt with in order to maintain some sense of world peace, if it is at all obtainable. Their specific choices set the world up for racism, what are moral values, and countries working together or against each other on different issues. The one simple choice of exploring Africa resulted in a magnitude of repercussions for the rest of the world in much later years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)