3. What drew the average Europeans to places like Central Africa? What made them think that they could leave their "bourgeois mortality back in Europe?"
For the longest time Africa was known as the "dark continent" due to the Europeans lack of knowledge about the vast interior. However after the Berlin Conference, which laid out the rules for colonial expansion into Africa, the imperialistic tendencies of the European countries were ignited, leading to the Great Push, a race between the armies of the imperialistic countries to claim as much interior land as possible. In 20 years, between 1880 and 1900, a little less than 90 percent of Africa was colonized by the Europeans, with only Ethiopia and Liberia remaining free. Caught up in the national frenzy for the glory of conquest, many average Europeans sought out the riches and opportunity of Central Africa. The region's abundance of natural minerals such as gold, coltan and diamonds as well as other highly lucrative goods like rubber, ivory and, to a certain extent, timber, lead to the mass extraction of these materials through the use of African slave labor. The horrific treatment of the African slaves and exploration of the resources of the region during this period of imperialism and European conquest has led to the questioning of the morality of the Europeans.
The premise of the question above states that the Europeans who participated in these atrocious actions actively or consciously left their morality behind in Europe. However, that premise ignores many crucial aspects of humanity and morality. For some Europeans, their actions in Africa did not violate their inherent morality. Throughout history slaves and other peoples have always been deemed as inferior beings. Slaves could be mistreated, abused and killed and their 'owners' would have not blink about the morality. Although European countries at that time were beginning to outlaw slavery, the concept that everyone was born equal had not been fully embraced by all members of European society. Additionally, the Europeans that had started out with a strong moral code, compatible with the current sense of morality, most likely did not just through away their "bourgeois mortality." Fear and pain are extremely strong motivators and can cause a shift in the moral code. Central Africa in the late 1800's was fraught with danger and peril, from the natural hazards of the region - e.g. large carnivorous wildlife and deadly, pervasive and contagious diseases - to the threat the native Africans presented. Actions under duress are not, and should not, be held to the same standard to those under normal circumstances. While it is clear that Europeans' actions in Central Africa are inconstant with what society now considers moral and just, we should not judge past actions by today's standards.
This post utilizes language very well. I thought the first paragraph was vivid, almost as though telling a story. One thing I sort of disagree with is your statement that some europeans' actions in Africa did not violate their morality. While it is true that their was slavery in Europe, it was not nearly as extensive or brutal. While I am sure that their was some cases of murder and limb-severing in England, it was not as prevalent as in the Congo.
ReplyDeleteWow, I thought this piece of writing was great. It was informative, had good insights, and brought the focus back to our class discussion! I am not convinced, however, that most of the Europeans had strong moral fiber, as they themselves had admitted (as seen in King Leopold's Ghost)that they had questioned their actions and did not agree with practices. Also, the outpouring of support for the Anti-slavery movement (written about in the Introduction of KLG) shows that the moral code of that time did not allow for the sorts of actions going on.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick, although we cannot judge moral codes of the past with the present. I'm pretty sure the stuff done in the Congo was below even their moral standards. Cutting off limbs probably didn't happen in Europe.
DeleteI definitely agree with both of your comments. Brutality to the extent that was demonstrated in the Congo cannot be justified, even in the context of the time period. Just because slavery was acceptable doesn't mean that some didn't question the morality behind it. When it comes to acts of extreme brutality, like disfiguring children, there seems an issue of humanity presented rather than societal context.
DeleteWhy would they do it if it was below their moral standards though? One of the things we talked about yesterday in the class discussion was that the Europeans saw the Africans as savages and thus they treated them as such. But the Europeans became savage as well in their treatment towards the natives. So maybe an idea is they learned different morals? Or had a separate compartment in their mind for the brutality they committed.
DeleteI really appreciated the format of this post, the language was effective and the links were well placed. I liked the concept of a moral difference between behavior in Europe and Africa but I would be interested to hear other idea on the topic as well. I also strongly agreed with your final statement of not judging yesterday's actions by today's standards.
ReplyDeleteWay to think critically. I like that you didn't assume the premise was true, which I definitely did in my response and I'm sure many of my classmates did. I also liked that you brought up the stress motivators. People are not the same in different environments. Very enlightening post.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really good analysis. I like how you addressed the practical pull Africa had for Euopeans with resources, but also acknowledged the drive to explore the unknown as a draw. Also, you definitely are right about the differing moral standards in the 19th century versus the present day.
ReplyDeleteThis was a great reply, I liked how you explained that much of the interests came from the benefits they reaped due to the resources (much like what I had to discuss). The morality that they lacked is interesting and I liked how you explained that much of it came from being under duress.
ReplyDeleteI really liked when you stated that, "Although European countries at that time were beginning to outlaw slavery, the concept that everyone was born equal had not been fully embraced by all members of European society." That is completely valid. Even though they view slavery as wrong they still were treating African people as slaves.
ReplyDelete