Was it a good decision for Stanley to explore with men who had no experience as travelers? Why or why not?

     Stanley's decision to take with him inexperienced explorers was both beneficial and hindering.   Due to the group's lack of experience, two things happened: at times the group was very slow and a large part of the group died along the journey.  During the exploration, "it took thirty-seven days to go one stretch of thirty-four miles" (56).   The group did not have the experience needed to know how to manure difficult terrain.  Also, this inexperience made it so the group could easily succumb to "festering wounds, dysentery, smallpox, or typhus" because they did not know how to take care of themselves, which in turn caused the death toll to be "overwhelming" (56).  However, there were also benefits to choosing an inexperienced group.  First, by choosing inexperienced explorers, Stanley was able to easily shine through as the best- this was very good for his reputation and allowed him to take the credit for any discovery*.  Also, due to the large death toll, there were not many survivors to discredit any claims that Stanley made upon arrivals in his writing.  In describing Stanley's descriptions, Hoschschild uses words like "condemnations," "proclaimed," and "fulminated" (57)- because he could, Stanley became a regular user of hyperbolic statements.  Though there were cons to choosing an inexperienced group, the good that came from this was ultimately what caught the eye of King Leopold and lead to Stanley's accomplished future.

*Hence landmarks such as "Stanley Falls".

King Leopold's Ghost Section 1 Response

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?

End of Class Thoughts

I would be curious to learn where the line, if there is one, between colonization and imperialism.  Though there are clear differences between the two things and they both have separate applications, there is much overlap between the two.  So, what would be an interesting thing to do would be to define the grey areas between the two.

News Article

1. What's being discussed in this article?

This article, "Taliban Poison Attack or mass Hysteria?  Chaos hits another Kabul girls' school," discusses recent "attacks" against girls' schools in Afghanistan.  There have been claims that the Taliban have been planting poisonous gas around girls' schools in order to send a message of their disapproval- the Taliban banned women's education during their regime from 1996-2001.  Though incidences such as these have happened before with hysteria being a possible cause, doctors believe that this most recent incident cannot be mistaken for hysteria.  However, regardless of the great detail of the horrific experience that many girls allegedly went through and saw, western doctors are skeptical as to whether anyone was actually poisoned because they cannot find any sign of poison.

1. When did the event happen? (Is this breaking news or something that's been analyzed and discussed for a while?)

 The main attack that is discussed in this article happened very recently; however, the topic of these types of attacks is nothing new.  The fight between the Muslim world regarding women's education has been present for a while.

1. What questions do you have that would help make this article make more sense to you? What more do you need to learn about to be able to report on this event?

The event is pretty clear.  There was nothing outrageously complex about it.

Which news worthy events do you remember from your lifetime? Three things. And ask at least one adult.

When I think of news from my lifetime, there are three events that stick out very clearly.  The first of which is 9/11; I can even remember where I was when I heard about it- in class at my elementary school.  The second event is Hurricane Katrina.  It was one of the first large natural disasters that I could actually understand the severity of.  Lastly, I remember the day I heard on the news about the amped up airport security.  It was the day that terrorism became very real.

My mother told me that she remembers the following three things: 9/11, landing on the moon and the 6 day war. She did not care to tell me any specifics as to where she was when she first heard and what not, but, to me, these all three seem to be very memorable events that shaped the present day world and our country.