African Americans are displayed as savages. Marlow can make observations about their savage appearance but his feelings contrast with what his eyes see. When he was thinking about the death of his helmsman he said, "I missed him even while his body was still lying in the pilot house. Perhaps you will think it passing strange this regret for a savage who was no more account than a grain of sand in a black Sahara" (46). Marlow is aware of how African Americans don't count for much in Sahara; he misses the helmsman and feels sorrow. He also uses the term "savage" and "nigger" showing how he views African Americans as inferior but not necessarily referring to the color of their skin. He may feel superior to African Americans but that doesn't make him racist. According to the American Heritage Dictionary corruption is ruining morally, perverting, contaminating and destroying integrity. The Europeans have corrupted African Americans by simply using the terms "savage", "nigger" and describing them as wild and untamed. Marlow speaks of the African Americans when he says, "Well, you know what was the worst of it--this suspicion of their not being inhuman" (32). Marlow states that when people begin to suspect that African Americans are not inhuman it can be the worst feeling. "They howled and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces" and ugly as it might have looked "he must at least be as much of a man as these on the shore" meaning a real man knows there is a relation between himself and the African Americans, whether he speaks of it or not the thought is there (32).
Marlow displays some thoughts of colonialism when he says, "We were wanderers on prehistoric earth, on an earth that wore the aspect of an unknown planet. We could have fancied ourselves the first of men taking possession of an accursed inheritance, to be subdued at the cost of profound anguish and of excessive toil" (32). He is stating that they were wondering in what seemed to be unclaimed land that they could have taken possession of but they would have been overpowered by distress and hard work. Mr. Kurtz also explains that "we whites, from the point of development we had arrived at, a must necessarily appear to them [savages] in the nature of supernatural beings--we approach them with the might as of a deity" This shows how many white people thought they could approach African Americans as supernatural beings and godlike, showing they had good intentions for colonizing.
Marlow said that "all Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz" relating to the idea that Mr. Kurtz' mother was half-English and his father half-French. Meaning Kurtz was not of one background and not the average European looking to colonize Africa. Kurtz had a diverse background "all Europe" not just a part of Europe shaped him.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
Should U.S. Send Peace Troops?
The issue in Darfur is between Arab Janjaweed and the Muslims. Rebel groups in Darfur formed to attack the Sudanese government for discriminating against non-Arab tribes. The Sudanese government formed a militia known as Janjaweed to chase rebel groups out using rape and murder to clear entire villages. Chad and the African Union have made efforts to stop the battle while the Sudanese government rejects UN force and requested the AU to leave.
Lawerence Kaplan argues that Darfur is in need of foreign intervention. Many activists want to fund the AU and lobby for the UN however; Lawrence thinks the AU won't put a stop to the killings, the UN will not solve the crisis and "the victims of Darfur can be saved by one thing and one thing alone: American power" (149). Through his argument he seems to be playing the sympathy card. The killing taking place in Darfur is horrible and if the U.S. can help it should but as David Rieff said in the no argument, "The United States is the last country that should be leading an international operation in Darfur" (151). The U.S. is in a bad position; viewed as a bully and imperial aggressor. International military should be deployed to keep the civilians safe from the attacking Sudanese government and to ward off the term genocide. David made a point concerning political interests of non-arab tribes, rebels, and the Janjaweed. He says, "To describe the former simply as victims deprives them of any agency. To describe the latter simply as killers precludes actually understanding the conflict a anything other than an eruption of human wickedness, rather like a volcano or an earthquake" meaning that a side can't be taken without understanding the conflict (153).
Although it seems morally correct for the U.S. to send peace keeping troops, I believe the no argument is stronger. With problems in Iraq and being in a bad position, the U.S. shouldn't be leading a peace intervention. The United Nations should stand up for one of their goals in securing peace.
Lawerence Kaplan argues that Darfur is in need of foreign intervention. Many activists want to fund the AU and lobby for the UN however; Lawrence thinks the AU won't put a stop to the killings, the UN will not solve the crisis and "the victims of Darfur can be saved by one thing and one thing alone: American power" (149). Through his argument he seems to be playing the sympathy card. The killing taking place in Darfur is horrible and if the U.S. can help it should but as David Rieff said in the no argument, "The United States is the last country that should be leading an international operation in Darfur" (151). The U.S. is in a bad position; viewed as a bully and imperial aggressor. International military should be deployed to keep the civilians safe from the attacking Sudanese government and to ward off the term genocide. David made a point concerning political interests of non-arab tribes, rebels, and the Janjaweed. He says, "To describe the former simply as victims deprives them of any agency. To describe the latter simply as killers precludes actually understanding the conflict a anything other than an eruption of human wickedness, rather like a volcano or an earthquake" meaning that a side can't be taken without understanding the conflict (153).
Although it seems morally correct for the U.S. to send peace keeping troops, I believe the no argument is stronger. With problems in Iraq and being in a bad position, the U.S. shouldn't be leading a peace intervention. The United Nations should stand up for one of their goals in securing peace.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Heart of Darkness Section One
As Marlow begins his story, he is thinking of the Romans and when they first arrived in England nineteen hundred years earlier. Marlow emphasizes the idea that there were no colonists there was conquerors. The earth was nothing but "sandbanks, marshes, forests, savages...cold, fog, tempests, disease, exile, and death" (4). Everyone fought for themselves, wanting to reach a higher calling and escape. Life was mysterious and savage. Forests, jungles and men were wild. There were few seeking efficiency, civilization, in this untamed environment which goes into the next question.
Imperialism is aggressively extending rule over foreign countries. Colonialism is a form of imperialism meaning exploitation by a stronger country of a weaker one; the use of the weaker country's resources to strengthen and enrich the stronger country. Marlow says before the 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" (4). This goes along with the definitions of both imperialism and colonialism; the stronger country is enriched from the weakness of another country (colonialism) by an aggressive or brute force (imperialism). Moving on to the next quote from Marlow both colonialism and imperialism are addressed. The conquest of the earth was possible by the stronger aggressively oppressing the weaker in order to conquer land.
Marlow's discussion of maps relates to the idea of conquering a place that would potentially be enriching. When he was younger he would point to a "blank space" on the map and say "When I grow up I will go there." He remembers pointing to the North Pole which he said he hasn't been and won't go, "The glamor's off" (5). The North Pole doesn't have any resources that would be enriching therefore he sees no point in going there. Colonialism, using a weaker countries resources to strengthen and enrich the stronger countries.
Imperialism is aggressively extending rule over foreign countries. Colonialism is a form of imperialism meaning exploitation by a stronger country of a weaker one; the use of the weaker country's resources to strengthen and enrich the stronger country. Marlow says before the 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" (4). This goes along with the definitions of both imperialism and colonialism; the stronger country is enriched from the weakness of another country (colonialism) by an aggressive or brute force (imperialism). Moving on to the next quote from Marlow both colonialism and imperialism are addressed. The conquest of the earth was possible by the stronger aggressively oppressing the weaker in order to conquer land.
Marlow's discussion of maps relates to the idea of conquering a place that would potentially be enriching. When he was younger he would point to a "blank space" on the map and say "When I grow up I will go there." He remembers pointing to the North Pole which he said he hasn't been and won't go, "The glamor's off" (5). The North Pole doesn't have any resources that would be enriching therefore he sees no point in going there. Colonialism, using a weaker countries resources to strengthen and enrich the stronger countries.
Withdraw from the United Nations?
When deciding whether or not the United States should withdraw from the United Nations, it's important to consider the past experience, as Andrea Seastrand does, but also the future of the United Nations, as The Defense Monitor does. After reading the packet on whether or not the U.S. should withdraw from the United Nations, I agree with The Defense Monitor. The U.S. was a leading country in the organization of the United Nations; how would our country be perceived if we withdrew from an organization we helped to create.
The Defense Monitor listed many ways of reforming the United Nations for efficiency and effectiveness, along with decreasing the military force and spending. One of the ideas was based on collective security; developing international security reduces U.S. spending while international peace and security would increase. Imbalances in U.S. contributions and budgets exist between the Pentagon, U.S. military and UN operations. "This gross imbalance reflects a general inability within the Administration and Congress to recognize that the U.S. can, at a significantly less cost, wield great influence over world events and achieve U.S. policy goals by remaining fully engaged in planning and implementing UN peace operations" (76). If the United Nations developed a "quick reaction force" the U.S. and other nations could decrease their military efforts and expenses. The Defense Monitor argues not only that we should remain a member of the United Nations but we should remain a member of a reformed UN.
The opposing side, Andrea Seastrand takes, argues that the UN is a waste of American life and money, also stating the UN is "inept in reducing conflict and human suffering" and has increased both. If the United Nations was reformed on ideas of security the U.S. would no longer budget national security, which would reduce "wasted" money. Another argument is the 18.4 million, in the taxpayer's dollars, embellishing conference facilities in Africa rather than funding famine. The United Nations isn't the only organization responsible for an instance where a taxpayer's dollars were placed in the wrong hands; they had intended to fund famine. Taking a glance around the world at other countries would reinforce how free America is. There aren't enough arguments made that a reformed United Nations couldn't resolve.
The Defense Monitor listed many ways of reforming the United Nations for efficiency and effectiveness, along with decreasing the military force and spending. One of the ideas was based on collective security; developing international security reduces U.S. spending while international peace and security would increase. Imbalances in U.S. contributions and budgets exist between the Pentagon, U.S. military and UN operations. "This gross imbalance reflects a general inability within the Administration and Congress to recognize that the U.S. can, at a significantly less cost, wield great influence over world events and achieve U.S. policy goals by remaining fully engaged in planning and implementing UN peace operations" (76). If the United Nations developed a "quick reaction force" the U.S. and other nations could decrease their military efforts and expenses. The Defense Monitor argues not only that we should remain a member of the United Nations but we should remain a member of a reformed UN.
The opposing side, Andrea Seastrand takes, argues that the UN is a waste of American life and money, also stating the UN is "inept in reducing conflict and human suffering" and has increased both. If the United Nations was reformed on ideas of security the U.S. would no longer budget national security, which would reduce "wasted" money. Another argument is the 18.4 million, in the taxpayer's dollars, embellishing conference facilities in Africa rather than funding famine. The United Nations isn't the only organization responsible for an instance where a taxpayer's dollars were placed in the wrong hands; they had intended to fund famine. Taking a glance around the world at other countries would reinforce how free America is. There aren't enough arguments made that a reformed United Nations couldn't resolve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)