HoD Important Quote

"They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force--nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others. They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind--as is very proper for those who tackle a darkness." Page 70

This quote is a shift from Marlow's previous paragraph where he praises the intentions of the explorers. He explains that he has seen the brutal truth of colonization first hand and that the ordered destruction of other cultures, while praised for profit and justified by Western ideals, is atrocious. He poignantly says that the conqueror's strength is nothing to marvel at or boast about because it is "an accident" taken from the weakness of others. While this does in a sense reflect a sense of European superiority, Marlow notes that the roles of conquerors and conquered are determined by chance (Guns, Germs, and Steel anyone?)
This passage reflects the tone of the rest of the narrative. Marlow is reflective and able to retell his story with the insight of time. He condemns conquerors as robbers and notes that the mentality that the ends justify the means is wrong.

Difficulties with Heart of Darkness

'Try to be civil, Marlow," growled a voice, and I knew there was at least one listened awake besides myself.
"I beg your pardon. I forgot the heartache which makes up the rest of the price. and indeed what does the price matter, if the trick be well done? You do your tricks very well. and i didn't do badly either, since i managed not to sink that steamboat on my first trip. It's a wonder to me yet. Imagine a blindfold man set to drive a van over a bad road. I sweated and shivered over that business considerably, I can tell you. after all, for a seaman, to scrape the bottom of the thing that's supposed to float all the time under his care is the unpardonable sin." Page 106-107

I don't understand what the other speaker is asking or what he is responding to. Wasn't Marlow having personal thoughts before this? I also don't understand Marlow's response specifically what he means by the trick and his metaphor with the van. What is Marlow trying to communicate and what is the larger implication for this part of his journey?

Psychology of Conquest

The account of the Congo's conquest in King Leopold's Ghost is original in its approach. Facts and dates are handy but a psychological profile of the players involved can be more useful and interesting. It is easy to forget that these sweeping periods of history were often largely orchestrated by a handful people (wealthy, white men) and that these major leaders and influencers were human with very human flaws and motivations. By looking at the background of those involved, it is easier to understand motive and the human element of historical events such as the conquest of the Congo.
I was not shocked to learn that most the key players here are disturbed people. Sure, maybe a little surprised at the extent or caught off guard by taking a peek behind history and the people involved, however, it makes sense. Leopold's early life and his family and other personal relationships largely influenced who he was as a ruler and what drove him to seek out colonies. Men such as Stanley sought an escape from their desperate lives in the unknown of the African wilderness where they themselves would be unknown and could rewrite themselves as daring men of conquest and courage.
Historically, many conquistadors and commanders have been notably unstable and have been motivated by personal lives and psychological hang-ups. From explorers such as the greedy, immoral Hernan Cortes who disobeyed his mother country for personal gain to the leaders in charge of such exploits, many have layered psychological profiles which, in a way, explain their actions.
Today, I would believe this still largely holds true. Let's take a look at politics for example. Someone interested in politics must be willing to subject their careers as well as personal lives to media and public scrutiny. They must be able to handle public opinion well and posses a certain amount of confidence and self-assurances the common person may not posses. This article  outlines some of the typical psychological profiles of those who seek office, so in effect, those who ultimately rule and make decisions are narcissists and extroverts.
This is certainly a different position from a time when rulers were placed on a throne by biological happenstance (a position, as we've seen, rife with its own, separate burdens  however it is still fascinating to look at the more human side of history and those involved in the decision making.

"The Fox Crosses the Stream"

This chapter discusses and explores the man behind the history, Leopold II.

An important aspect of Belgium's colonization of the Congo is the history of the country itself and the man who planned the conquest. Belgium is a small country, once under outside rule itself many a time for several years. It became independent after revolts and placed a German Prince, Leopold I on the throne.
Leopold II lived a distant, reserved life fated with being the next ruled of the country. His parents had a loveless marriage like he himself would be fated to have for political reasons. Even "If Leopold wanted to see his father, he had to apply for an audience." Leopold never learned Flemish, the language of the majority of Belgians and was never exceptionally driven or bright.
His need to make Belgium into a rich, prosperous nation most likely originated from his failure in other aspects of life. In an attempt to prove himself worthy, Leopold focused on economic gain. Interestingly, unlike many other imperialist nations and rulers, according to the book, Leopold made his intentions very clear. This  source claims to disagree and Leopold's motives and appearance are debatable.
As in the title, Leopold is like a fox crossing a stream, as his father observed. He is timid and careful though purposeful. Leopold's colonization of Africa was just that. He began slowly by attempting to find suitable areas to colonize traveling to various parts of the world. He did not jump into the situation too hastily and worked to find an area he wouldn't need to buy but could simply take by force.
He used a veneer of philanthropy to achieve a good public standing so that few would question him. Leopold acted with prompted by his personal life and his desire for wealth and notoriety.
sources:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/336654/Leopold-II
http://www.nndb.com/people/036/000094751/









Questions

1. What is the significance of the title as it relates to Leopold's life and rule? Is it accurate?
2. How did Leopold's personal life affect him as a ruler?
3. What does Belgium's own history and culture perhaps foreshadow about its imperialism?
4. What is significant about Leopold's words "Petit pays, petits gens" (small country, small people) and view of Belgium as a ruler?
5. What is the significance of Leopold's Geographical Conference in 1876?

Disregarding the Stigma

I swear I wrote this before and used my Panic Button to extend the deadline and it got saved as a draft and I'm sorry.

There are few people who I idolize more than Bill McKibben, founder of the environmental organization 350.org. I pretty much threw up from excitement when I heard him speak and met him a few months ago. Aren’t we adorable?
So I was thrilled to find out that he has written a few things making a case for one children families and, as the parent of an only child himself, advocating for only children. One article published in The New York Times “What Only-Child Syndrome?” McKibben explores the history of the only child stigma, the reasons why even now only-children are stereotyped as spoiled and self-possessed.
In the late 19th century there was a study which used a survey to find exceptional and peculiar children. The conclusion was that immigrants and only children were far more likely to be peculiar. The stigma stuck and for a generation only-childness might at well have been a disease. At one point in the early 1900s one journalist insisted “It would be best for the individual and the race if there were no only children.”
This viewpoint held through the first half of the century. Finally in the 1970s, two researchers began to perform studies to look into the difference in only children. Toni Falbo and Denise Polit eventually examined more than a hundred studies done since the 1920's. In the mid-1980's, Falbo and Polit concluded that ''only children scored significantly better than other groups in achievement motivation and personal adjustment,'' and were in all other respects indistinguishable from children with siblings.
Only children tend to have slightly higher I.Q.'s and their vocabulary scores are markedly higher, probably because conversation in the household does not become as childlike.I can certainly attest to the fact that, as an only child, I only ever sat at the adult table and had the privileged of being treated as an equal

In his book, Maybe One: A Personal and Environmental Argument for Single-Child Families, McKibben argues that one child may be enough, may not fall into the stereotypes and could slow the terrifying population rise. It could be an environmental service to only have one child in a world overburdened by quickly rising populations. Having only one child, in a non-dictatorial, government demanded way, could be more socially and environmentally responsible. McKibben makes it seem that having two children is a luxury. However, for the 2.3 children and a picket fence attitude to shift, the stigma surrounding self-centered only children will have to change first.
So the study in the 1920s that said that only children are peculiar might be right. Only children are weird, they grow up in a significantly different environment, however, weird might not be so bad. Regardless, my position as an only child may have given me a different upbringing, but only children like others are influenced negatively and positively by their home environment.

Question #3

3.What drew the average European to places like Central Africa? What made them think they could leave their “bourgeois morality back in Europe?” 
As European countries began to industrialize and become imperial powers, they needed to expand and conquer other areas for resources.  Europeans such as the Dutch were drawn to Central Africa because of the ivory trade and the immense amount of wealth which could be gained from the exploitation of these resources. As Europe modernized and prosperity increased, there was an increase in ivory demand to make luxary goods such as piano keys, billiard balls, knife handles, and ornamental carvings. (Brittanica).
Also, during the 18th and 19th centuries, the Europeans realized that Africa could also provide a cheap labor force. With superior weapons such are guns, they were able to overwhelm and capture many people as slaves to ship over to the Americas which needed a cheap labor force. This mainly occurred on the west coast of Africa however the trading extended into Central Africa as well. 
Central Africa gained attention with King Leopold II. His father had attempted to found colonies in the Americas and the Pacific however he failed and Leopold II turned his attention to Central Africa which was not as prized and less known to Europeans at the time. (Brittanica). 
Europeans believed that they could leave their “bourgeois morality back in Europe" because for the most part, Africa was seen as savage and there for the taking. Like the Native Americans and European conquest and colonization, the native people were seen as inferior and exploitable for other purposes. For economic reasons,"European merchants and trading companies called on their home governments to intervene and impose "free trade," by force if necessary. It was these political, diplomatic, and commercial factors and contentions that led to the military conflicts and organized African resistance to European imperialism." (Africana Age). It was in the haste to expand and gain an economic advantage that the Europeans brutalized and exploited Central Africa.

Senior Project Update

We're almost done! lol jk