Response
After reading this section of KLG, even though it is regarding the topic's most basic aspects. I was shocked. Though facts about these events in the Congo have trickled down to me from those who have read this book, I never understood its severity. I am also disappointed in myself, along with past teachers, that this is the first time I am truly learning about such an important event in history.
This topic is also very interesting because in sophomore year I wrote a paper about the marginalization of the gypsy persecution- this reminds me of this due to its reach and how it is brushed over in history.
It was very interesting too how, even though they discovered a land filled with a new culture, riches and people, European explorers were so concerned with the origins of the Congo River. I also found it very interesting that Henry Morton Stanley was praised for what he did (not to mention trusted) despite the fact that he frequently lied and "created journal entries about a dramatic shipwreck and other adventures that never happened."
Questions
Usually imperialist influence or takeovers have an exchange of benefits between those coming in and the natives. However, it is difficult to see what perks the Africans had from this imperialism. So, what advantages, if any, did these African countries get from this European conquest?
Affonso wrote many letters to King Joao III and many "speeches about the horros of Kind Leopold's Congo would be given as far away as Australia. To some extend these events were globally known. Should other countries have helped the people in the Congo, or would it have been seen as hypocritical because they too were imperialists? How did the economic benefits that Europe reaped from the Congo shape perceptions?
No comments:
Post a Comment