AP Question Review

2007 Question 3: Develop a Position on the Ethics of Offering Incentives for Charitable Acts

Outline: My Response
Intro - Humans by nature are selfish creatures that generally act only in their best interest. Those who donate expect to receive some sort of payment whether it is a religious, emotional or financial payout. Adding additional and relatively small incentives enhances charitable contributions rather than corrupting the process.
P1 - Religious benefits to those who are charitable (Buddhist belief in Karma, Catholic church and the charitable indulgences)
P2 - People often donate to feel better (social popularity, thinking that they are positively contributing to the world; donate a dollar to poor African children justify buying luxurious hundred dollar shoes)
P3 - Frequent financial/tangible benefits (donating boxtops for education donation in kindergarten led to pizza party, funding a new building at a college named after them)
Conclusion: Charity can be enormously helpful to beneficiaries but the reason most people contribute to charity is for enhancing their own well being.

Sample Answers:
A. The student wrote an very complete essay with apt examples. The negated counterexamples strengthen his position and argument. He also used a nice variety of simple everyday examples to theoretical analysis. (Score 9)
B The student had a solid thesis and examples but was oftentimes repetitive. She also limited her tangible examples to those that seemed simplistic and almost irrelevant  Rather than analyzing human nature, she focused more on the glossy finish of the purpose of charity. The lack of counterexamples weakened her argument. (Score 6)
C. Although this paper started out with a strong thesis, the subsequent paragraphs did little to support his points. The mishmash of cliches and seemingly arbitrary examples made this essay disjointed and at times incoherent. The length and initial sense of structure helps the author create a sense of organization but it truly is a shamble of half-thoughts. (Score 4)

Comparison:
My essay would have been more like Student A's essay (hopefully). Like Student A, I would have argued that incentives for charitable acts were ethical and then provided apt examples to support my point. In my outline I did not provide a counterexample but I hoped I would have included it as I progressed in my essay and mulled over this controversial question. My essay most likely would have had decent organization and in depth analysis of charity and human nature. I would have tried to avoid cliches - by mentioning Karma as a religious practice and belief rather than its pop culture connotation. Also I would use appropriate tone and avoid teenage colloquialisms. Bring on the SAT words.

Self-Analysis:
I think I would have been fairly successful on this particular essay. In my outline I had a clear thesis and provided apt examples and different flavor for each paragraph (to avoid seeming repetitive). However, I need to remember to include counterexamples in my outline. By addressing and then negating a differing viewpoint, my essay would have been stronger (Score: 7/8)

Postmodernism

The Postmodernism literary criticism is mainly focused on how relatively and unconventional narrative methods are used in the book - postmodernism is considered to start after World War II. This is particularly applicable to the The Poisonwood Bible, which was set in the 1960's and published in the 1990's. One of the more distinctive features is the 5 narrator system, Orleanna starting off each section and her four girls narrating the subsequent chapters. This also highlights the fact that father, Nathan Price, has no voice at all. None of the villagers have a direct voice in the book either. The restricted viewpoint, different flavors of American women, emphasize the lack of knowledge and misconceptions the Americans had it terms of the Africans.

Heart of Darkness vs. Apocalypse Now

Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now were both extremely captivating, perhaps not in the most pleasant ways. While HoD had numerous sections where I felt like throttling Conrad for his exceptional, but irritating, ability to discuss a single event for pages on end, I thought the book captured a relatively moral European's perspective and dilemma in terms of the Congo. The character's inner turmoil, inexplicable paradoxical scenarios and discrepancy between the actions and intentions were thought provoking. Even the odd yet purposeful portrayals of the Africans as a bundle of human parts had me scratching my head,  amused and perplexed (that's a good thing most of the time). However in AN, I did not feel that the movie portrayed the characters with the same depth that the book executed so well. Sure, we all heard Martin Sheen rambling in what seemed like - and probably was - a drug induced hazed about his paradoxical feelings of the Jungle. But it was not even close to Marlow's narration. Even Conrad's nameless characters, such as the European in the silk pajamas, had more intrigue than the pot head Chef. I did not care for the stupid surfer dude mentality that was most definitely not present in HoD. I think everybody's heart wept as they watched Clean die listening to his mother's audio tape, but that was an emotional one off. Chief's last words, stating that  there was a spear protruding from his chest, felt forced. 

Even more stark was the difference in the final settings: in HoD, the African village the AN's grandiose tribal palace. Conrad uses the village as a marker of the lack of European influence upon most of the aspects of the Africans life - of course the exception being the villagers continual hunt for ivory and Kurtz's presence. In AN, the arrival and eventual meeting of Kurtz was over dramatized for no particular purpose. The meeting of Kurtz is supposed to be anticlimactic as a way of contrasting the Europeans overdone hype and reality. The dark, gloomy yet glowing tall structure seemed completely out of place. A giant hut would have sufficed. Even Kurtz's death scene in AN seemed overdone. The simultaneous butchery of both the ox and Kurtz took away from the significance of his death. In HoD, the African slave running up and simply stating that "Mr. Kurtz he dead," while not going for the shock value, was very impactful.    

Despite my little rant about how I thought that Heart of Darkness was significantly better than its film counterpart, Apocalypse Now, watching the movie was an overall enjoyable experience. If not just for fun, AN highlight some of the previously under appreciated aspects of Conrad's novel. 

Difficult Passage of Heart of Darkness

I was not quite sure about the passage at the beginning of Part II on pages 102-104 of Heart of Darkness. The nephew and the uncle are talking and gossiping about the events of the station. Who are the nephew and uncle? Also who are they discussing in this quote: "Who was it they were talking about now? I gathered in snatches that this was some man supposed to be in Kurtz's district and  of whom the manager did not approve." Are they talking about Marlow or some other random European man in the Congo? What is the purpose of the Conrad including this scene. Why is it important for Marlow to overhear the uncle and his nephew?

Chapter 16: Journalists Won't Give You Receipts

This chapter opens with the conclusion to the life story of Henry Morgan Stanley. After retiring from his position in Parliament, due to his lack of a sense of humor and sheer boredom  Stanley started writing his autobiography. However, he died before its completion. Despite his continuing public support of Leopold and the colonization of the Congo, it was rumored that Stanley was disapproving of the "chamber of horrors" Congo had become.

The chapter refocuses its attention on the latest malevolent actions of King Leopold. In a response to the attacks of his actions and policies in the Congo, Leopold established the Press Bureau, an government organization that essentially acted as the royal propaganda machine. The started writing and "encouraging""  the publication of reports that raved about the successes of Leopold's humanitarian efforts in the Congo. In addition, the Press Bureau started fabricating stories about the abuses committed by other major colonial powers, namely England in South Africa and India.

Despite Leopold's and the Press Bureau's best efforts, Europe was turning against the king and his actions in Congo. Encouraged by his success, Morel set his sights of his anti-Leopold campaign on the United States. Hoping to have the nation that first recognized the Congo to take action against Leopold, Morel traveled the country trying to gain support for his movement. By tailoring his message, Morel was able to recruit numerous influential government officials and prominent figures, such as Mark Twain, Booker T. Washington, President Teddy Roosevelt and John Tyler Morgan. Mark Twain, so moved by Morel's message, went to campaign in Washington as well as compose a satirical anti-Leopold pamphlet, King Leopold's Soliloquy.

Frightened by Morel's growing success,  Leopold launched his own campaign in the United States. By targeting wealthy, ambitious and prominent government officials/ businessmen such as Senator Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island,  Leopold was able to halt many of the legislature that would be detrimental to Leopold's control of Congo. Leopold also tried to recruit the morally shady San Francisco lawyer, Henry Kowlasky, to his cause. However, after feeling despondent and rejected when Leopold decided that he was too much of a risk (after being bribed and shown the horrors of the Congo), Kowlasky turned against the Belgian king. Selling his correspondence, figures of his bribes (200,000 francs is about 1,000,000 dollars) and documenting the effects, Kowlasky fed Hearst and the American people stories about the villainy of Leopold.

The tide had turned against Leopold and his success in the Congo. In a last ditch effort to dampen the critics,  Leopold tried to launch another mock-investigation into the actions of the Congo.  Despite selecting already biased - towards Leopold - commissioners/judges, their report confirmed all the accusations of Casement and Morel. Most notable, was the testimony of the tortured African Chief Lontulu literally counting with twigs of all the his tribe members who had been killed by Leopold's men in the Congo. Still attempting to salvage the media situation, Leopold released a fake summary of the report a day before the real one was to come out. Jumping on the opportunity, British and American newspapers published this English summary. The combination of declining popularity and media support and lack of success of his old media manipulation tricks, Leopold and the future of the Belgian controlled Congo was becoming increasingly shaky.

Quiz Questions:
1. How did Leopold use his immense influence to get positive accounts about Congo travels and business published?
2. How did Morel shape his arguments to appeal to different American constituencies?
3. What is the significance of the title?
4. In what ways did Leopold try to "court" influential Americans? How successful was he?
5. In what ways did Leopold's lobbying and press effort begin to derail? In your eyes, what was his biggest mistake?

Seriously Screwed Up Response

King Leopold's Ghost has provided extremely thorough details on the events surrounding the colonization of the Congo by Leopold, includes the psychology of those who chose to participate in the atrocities of the Congo. However, this book has not drastically changed my view on the modern issues of exploration and exploitation. First of all, the book goes explains how the majority of the "villains" of the Congo ordeal had traumatic childhoods and dubious morals before traveling to Africa, Stanley and Leopold for example. The Congo just allowed these troubled people to act out without the external double checks present in Europe. Expecting immoral people to act moral under without authoritative corrections - it was illegal to murder or enslave people back in Europe - is unrealistic.

Also the premises of exploration does not exactly apply to the modern world. Besides the deepest trenches in at the bottom of the sea and the far reaches of space, people have essentially mapped the entire world. There are no "dark areas" like that of Africa in the early 1900's. Additionally, the modern day person has almost immediate knowledge of the events all over the world. From the video footage of the Arab Spring to the coverage of the Indian gang rape scandal, the average American (or citizen of a developed region) can follow major international events.  In terms of exploitation, this book has not drastically altered my perspective. Exploitation  by definition, is an immoral action, whether it is needlessly destroying resources or using slave labor.  I already had a clear stance on this issue, so Hochschild's book recount of the horrific and wasteful exploitation of the native lands by particular regime, just added more support to my preordained perspective.

While King Leopold's Ghost does not significantly alter my perspective on the modern issues of exploitation and exploration, the book does chronicle some extremely corrosive elements of humanity. Similar to memoirs of the survivors of the Holocaust, it sheds light on the harshness of the world the value of modernization and civilization. Only through the intervention of the moral citizens United States, England and some of the other European countries was Leopold and his employees stopped. Although the literal details and and moral implications are not directly applicable to the modern day, it King Leopold's Ghost contributes to the understanding of humanity.

Response to Question 3

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.