Introduction, prologue, Chapters 1, 2, 3 Questions: 1. How was King Leopold viewed in Europe? King Leopold was viewed in Europe as a splendid man because of his “philanthropic” nature and his “kindness.” Because King Leopold had always welcomed European newspapers, they had always praised him because of his public work, which benefited Africans; because his troops fought and defeated local-slave traders and because he brought Christian missionaries to his new colony. But in reality he only exploited the people living in the Congo for his personal gain and while Europe was gaining rubber and ivory almost no goods were being sent to Africa to pay for them. 2.
In the article "That Was no Welcome" by Clark, we are able to see the defiance of two different countries, Europe and Africa, in their first encounter due to their lack of cultural knowledge. The Europeans attacked the Africans because they assumed that the strange rituals performed by them were a sign of threat. The Africans believed the Europeans were "brothers" so they performed rituals to welcome them, however because of the sudden attack Africans realized they were enemies, so they attacked them back. Since Europeans did not know the local knowledge of the Africans, they assumed that the
In the years of Europe’s series of conquest and colonization across the African landmass, the various tribes of Africa reacted either peacefully (possibly angry, just not doing anything to stop Europe), or aggressively. Many of the African tribes threatened by European expansion reacted to Europe’s violence (or warning) in peaceful, non-aggressive ways. Most of this is due to Africans having a huge military disadvantage against Europe due to their lack of modern firearms [doc 9]. Europe demanded written documents stating the surrender of African land over to the Europeans, of course, the Africans didn’t have a chance of defeating them, and so they signed their land of, sometimes without even attempting to fight back. They also had to state
The main reason the British practiced imperialism in Africa was to bring forth Christianity and many European civilizations to African countries. Britain’s economy fed on trade, and they did not want the West Coast of Africa for its palm oil. They believed it was too unstable for good commerce without their control. Their main objective was to protect their high paying countries; India and the Caribbean. Since the slave trade in the 1830’s, Africa didn’t impress the British.
Blacks at the time liked the idea because it gave them an opportunity to serve their country and have perfect unity with the whites as well as patriotic unity for themselves (doc1). With the blacks, imperialists also had government officials on their side as well. William McKinley saw imperialism as a positive thing. He said that with gaining the Philippines he had no clue what to do with them. Then he came to conclusion that they must take them over and govern over them because they where unfit for self government, trading them would be bad for business, and giving them back would cause the same problem again.
The purpose of writing such a primary account would be so that it can better notify the Europeans who are going to visit Africa so that they can better adapt to the foreign culture, and enlighten the Europeans on how the other side of the world is living while boasting on how the European culture is far more advanced. Bosman begins the report in a shocking manner where he identifies the Negroes, or the Africans, as “crafty, villa[i]nous and fraudulent, and very seldom to be trusted.” Even though it is understandable of how in the eyes of a European who usually look down upon the Africans as uncivilized and crude human beings, Bosman continuously makes critical remarks on Africans on Gold Coast as the Dutchman touches upon and criticizes on many subjects and cultures of Africa. From the cruel system of slavery and social levels to food and daily eating habits of Africans, Bosman tries to reveal vast information about African life to inform the general public in
Joseph Conrad, in his novella Heart of Darkness, contributes to the western concept of Africa’s inferiority to Europe due to his perspective as a white European that he has innately acquired; his intentions, however, cannot be defined through the available evidence. In fact, this novella can be seen as Conrad’s take on the European views of Africans from an outsider perspective. When making judgements on the unknown, people are bound to stick to stereotypes and prejudgements--in this case, Conrad and his white European audience. Whether, in doing so, he is attempting to be nasty towards Africans or not is irrelevant to the fact that Conrad’s perspective is one-sided and racist. Just as Kurtz is a product of his one-sided European upbringing, as we see in the novella, so is Conrad.
For years people have debated the differences between how Europeans treated Africans and how they treated Native Americans during the exploration years of the Americas and the continent of Africa. It’s clear to see that Native Americans were treated far worse than the Africans were. This is due to the value that the Europeans saw in the Africans. When they looked at Native Americans they saw cannibalistic ruthless savages that would not accept christianity and were going to hell. Also the Indians eaisly succumed to the diseases brought over by the Europeans.
Cultural Imperialism in Africa European imperialism had a strong influence over African culture in many ways. Essentially all of Africa fell victim to the very influential and dominant European nations. The process of imperialism on these economically and militarily weak countries of Africa was obviously simple for the Europeans. In most of Africa, there were no countries, only clans and tribes, which made the imperialization much easier as well. These imperialist nations, such as Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany, showed African nations many new ideals and tools that spread like a cultural virus.
The beginning of slavery began as punishments for crimes in Africa, leading to Europe wanting them. Which also lead to the United States also wanting them because of economic problems which started the triangular trade. Free slaves came to happen because of the Confiscation Act of 1862, but even when freed, they were still discriminated and lacked choices to choose from to live their lives. Also, the freed slaves didn’t know what to do to survive on their owns. Slaves were better off than freedmen because they had food and shelter, some slave owners were kind to the slaves, and slaves knew what they had to do.