Final Project

I made a Unit Plan for the final project because I teach, simple as that. I like making Unit Plans now, as compared to in the past because I know what has or can work in a classroom.

Back when I was an intern at, the glorious, Lakeview High School teaching a 9th grade Global Studies course was my primary assignment. It was a a great class because my mentor teach had created it, ensuring that it dealt with world issues, even though it was for young teenagers. As I have mentioned we taught subjects like the Rwanda Genocide and the Genocide (still) happening in Darfur. Pretty heady stuff, but it is never too soon to start teaching it to students, if not now then when? Amazingly 9th grade students possess empathy and are caring when it comes to autrocoties, or at the very least they can fake it well enough to trick me.

My Unit I wrote is probably based more around a 9th grade classroom, though I think it could work at any level by simply replacing certain assignments with high level reading or higher level responses fromt he students. For example, instead of discussing it as a class have them debate it.

My Unit covers quite a bit of ground on various topics. You could spend six weeks on any of these readings or topics, but students and teachers get tired of the same subject after doing it for too long, so I wanted to keep my students moving forward toward new things. I set them up by providing simple background knowledge of Africa and making them learn countries in Africa, much like with our class. I feel bad for any student that has me for History because they will be learning maps of the entire globe, that included the former Eastern Bloc with all the "stan" countries. After the background info is established we are going to hit the ground running, first talking about what happened in Rwanda in the early 90's then making the easy transition over to present day Darfur. After those two genocides, the class is going to focus almost two weeks reading about child soldiers, as well as, their impact on people, families, ect. Then we'll finish up the Unit with a positive spin reading about how people are trying to beter Africa. To finish the Unit they will work on a very braod project about Africa. To say it is broad could be misleading, they will be able to research any African topic they want, getting it cleared with me first so I can ensure there is enough information out there on it. This will be painful, even college students like being told what to work on, but it will be good for them. Choosing their own topic makes them think indeendantly, something that is missing from most of the education system today.

One thing you will notice is that there is very little homework for the assessment of students knowledge. This is not because I got lazy half way through the lesson plans. While teaching in Florida I was told that if I assigned homework I would not get it back 90% of the time. That held pretty much true. I cannot offically say I was told to not assign homework, but if I wanted any of my students to pass homework should not be given much of a weight in the class. Shocking perhaps, but that is the way things are going in the eucation field. I tried to enclude a few meaningful projects for my students to do and class time to work on them, that is how I combat this issue.

NGO

While interning I was at the amazing school of Battle Creek Lakeview High School, I am sorry Western thinks you should teach only in the inner city, you will not be able to intern there. When I was there one of the teachers had a program that had all the history classes collect money for numerous causes like nets for kids in Africa, buying people animals, things of that nature. It was great because each block could choose what exactly they wanted to raise money for. Some did nets, some bought a pig, it worked really well. That is neither here nor there. I guess it shows that this is a way to really get your students thinking about helping global issues.

While I was in Florida, I ran across a Newsweek article that peaked my interest, in the same lines as my time at Lakeview did. There is a group of people who are trying to make it possible for all children to own, or at least have access, to a laptop. I know this isn't as noble as feeding them or malaria nets, but it starts helping developing country's from the ground up. The process of change isn't one block at a time, it is many working together.

Ok, so these like guys run on solar power, can withstand heat and humidity. They even thought of little things that would prove difficult for users, like making sure the screen won't glare in the sun. Just because they are giving them to third world countries doesn't mean they can't have nice things! The software is great too, the computers are so children can learn how to use them, how many of us learned computers from a class? No, we sat down and played around with it. The Computers will have useful software as it's educational device, like Word, Excel and Powerpoint. In my eyes, those are the big three when it comes to being needed in the world.

What I really love about this was that you can give a laptop and get a laptop. It costs $399. Think of it this way, there are always fund raisers for charity, well this charity gives back to your school. They aren't great laptops, but it has word processing which is really the key, especially if you are working in a poor American school. It is a fund raiser most people should get behind since it not only helps out others but they can help out their students in the process. Though, $400 is a lot of money.
You don't have to get a laptop in return, for half the price you can simply give them. I know the makers want to give them to all developing countries but right now they are focusing on Africa.

The fact that these men have made a computer for under $200 is an amazing feat, it almost didn't happen. They had some problems with the getting the prices of processors down, but somehow they found someone who could make them cheap enough to make it worth while. Sadly, it was probably made possible because of some sort of horror in mining happening in Africa.

"You think you tough now? Come to Africa."

I did my library exploration on child soldiers so I got most of my ranting and done when I sent that e-mail out. I guess, to take the least looked at route I could talk a little bit on how ingenious it is of the leaders. Most people, adults and teenagers, never want to go to war. It isn't like the old days where war was given a glamorous look and everyone thought they could improve or prove themselves through it. Ever since the 60's and Vietnam when images were splayed over the news every night of the horrors of war it has lost the romantic appeal. But not when you are a child, you still view it as full of heroes. Wars are where the heroes and the movie stars come from so why not be a part of it. Think back to your history lessons, who is talked about more, people who were around during wars or peacetime figures?

So you are a leader or potential leader of a nation so you can exploit for money, the adults won't fight for you because they know you will be just as corrupt as the last guy. You go out and get kids to do it. Their psyche is easily broken, they are young so will still feel dependent on an adult figure for guidance and necessities, plus the next year there will be more of them growing up, perfect, child soldiers it is!

Genius for the leaders to show the child soldiers action movies too. Ishmael Beah wrote that they saw Rambo so often that one time while raiding a village one of his friends acted like Rambo, he put a big knife in his teeth and snuck into the village trying to silently eliminate guards. It might sound sick and twisted but for a child to reenact a movie (especially one who has been brainwashed and possibly given drugs) it would pretty sweet. It is like you are your favorite character, a more extreme version of what happened this summer for the Sex in the City movie when girls flocked to NYC, bought cosmos and traipsed around Manhattan.

I always find it interesting that the child soldiers have power fetishes. This isn't anything that is new, Native American's did the ghost dance that they thought would make bullets go through them. At points though, it seems like charms of this nature, thinking you can be invincible, would be disproved. I cannot fully say that because they are younger children, or on drugs, or overtaken by the horrors of war that they convince themselves of these charms powers. More often than not groups that are underdogs look to fetishes to pump themselves up against the odds.

Johnny Mad Dog

Those child soldiers came up with some creative war names! Giap, Ibi Amin, I had to look up some of these people who I forgot about, and they are coming up with these names through their blood and drug hazed minds! Here is a fun activity, try and think of a really bad ass name that wouldn't sound stupid to use in war, I'll wait.......harder than you think isn't it.

I really respect how the novel was written, in the aspect that the story bounced from one character to the next. I liked even more that sometimes they met up, even though toward the end I thought it a little too coincidental that they were always crossing paths, as if the Roaring Tigers were the only relevant militia force in the city. And the ending was a little too "tied with a bow" for me, it didn't fit with the rest of the book.
Sidebar: I wonder if city sectors are really called Sarajevo, Kandahar and so on, at first I thought they were the cool war nicknames given by the militiamen to different parts of the city.
Ok, back. What I liked even more was the amount of detail each character gave to sections of the novel. For instance, when both our character are on the road and Laokole almost gets hit by Mad Dog in his vehicle, they both had different views on the situation. At one point Mad Dog acted that if the people would get out of their way and stop running then they wouldn't have to kill them, possibly a cooping mechanism for the atrocities that they enact. Another scene that they described differently was at the Aid station midway through the novel. Each person thought that different parts of the story was more important than the other. Mad Dog focused on the event, the woman, his feelings; Laokole focused on not knowing what was happening, her fear and the cheering of the crowd when the soldiers left. Laokole also missed that troops positioned themselves in position to take out the militia...or Mad Dog made it up to make himself seem like a capable leader, we really don't know.

Something cool Emmanuel Dongala touched on slightly that I feel is often left out in talks about child soldiers, or perhaps my mind is just simply too male oriented, but Lovelita being a child soldier and female was great. There are female child soldiers, one even has a book out there I need to order and read, but when pictures are taken of child soldiers it is generally of boys carrying weapons and outfitted ridiculously. I feel the media gives a bias when it comes to child soldiers, but at the end of the day, girls, as well as boys, can kill people.

The ceremony with the new president giving hand picked children food reminded me of a part of Blood Diamonds when I listened tot he book on cd. There are now ceremonies where child soldiers are disarmed and to hear it described it is a big farce used to give them positive media attention. For the disarming children are picked at random and told they are going to stop being soldiers, they are usually separated from their unit long before the ceremony to make sure nothing rash happens. During the ceremony the child soldiers are stripped of their military things, almost like a discharge. It is suppose to be happy to see but the Africans watching know it is staged and the children are normally confused and distraught that they are losing their rank and power, so it is only for the foreign media.

Environmental Issue

I chose to look at the Mountain Gorilla's not because I care about the environment or particularly endangered species. When this course first started I saw a headline about the Mountain Gorilla's being in danger since rebels had taken over their reserve in the DRC. First of all, I thought the DRC was at peace at the moment so that was a shocker to me, I thought the rebellions there had subsided for a while. Second, I couldn't truly understand what the rebels controlling the gorilla sanctuary had to do with their survival. Why would rebels want to go out and kill animals, people sure I can understand that but to slaughter animals has nothing to do with controlling land.

The most important thing about the Mountain Gorilla, in my mind, is that it is located only in Uganda, Rwanda and eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

Well, it comes around to two things, Mountain Gorillas are endangered so that opens a market for their pelts by collectors. What is more likely is that the gorillas are sold as meat, commonly known as bushmeat.

Bushmeat is any animal hunted in the wild and killed to eat their meat. Sounds suitable, there are starving people in Africa so why not allow them to hunt animals so they won't starve. However, killing animals, like gorillas, can have negative effects aside from the depopulation of endangered species. There could be links between gorilla meat and spreading of the Ebola virus, since the virus is also an epidemic among primates. Also, there are hypothesis that this is a possible way that HIV has spread. The butchering of gorilla's leads to prolonged exposure and it is possible that this contact, through skin or mucous membrane, could lead to contracting HIV.

More over, the Western world is not helping the bushmeat situation. Being prized as a delicacy bushmeat si smuggled into places and put on restaurant menus. Many species of animals, not just the Mountain Gorilla, are put in danger with this large trade, that for the most part goes unchecked. More than 150 rangers have been killed in the eastern DRC area over the past 10 years. That number is astounding, I'm not sure the last time a DNR ranger was killed on the job or if it is even reported if they do!

I have this video done by the BBC on bush meat, but being the BBC they won't allow me to embed it, so you must click the link.

I need to read more novels with Muslim's in it

It seems fairly clear to me that the wadden represent, say desert resources, and the Bedouin the way of life that did not disrupt what nature had in place. The two visitors, especially Masoud seem hell bent on tracking down a wadden and killing, or if you prefer, the end a little piece of the old way, the way that did not totally change and rape the environment. Masoud appetite is so insatiable I cannot help but think he represents the new modern world, because every time we read more the modern world is doing something else harmful to the old way of living and usually in turn to the environment as a cost of modernization. A cost many do not think twice about putting on credit to be paid later.

Kat has inspired me to do some research for this blog. Masoud, the name of one of the men who come to the Wadi is Arabic, which first interests me because he is with a man named Cain Adam, I assume him to be European of decent. In Arabic, Masoud means fortunate, prosperous or happy. The character in the book does not seem to be any of that, he is pushy, rude and hungry for meat. Or, one could say, Masoud is prosperous which has lead him on all these hunts and is only happy when he has eaten his fill of meat; taken something from the land that cannot be replaced, because naturally death is permanent.
As for the name Cain Adam, I had to do religious research, my least favorite kind of research, ever...ever. In all three major religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Cain is a descendant of Adam, I am assuming hence the last name Adam. In the Koran and Torah, Cain kills his brother Abel because of Allah/God's rejection of his offering. I leave it at that, since this is already way over my head.



With the mention of the Bedouin I cannot help but think back to this summer when I was watching Lawrence of Arabia, near the beginning of the movie Lawrence's guide is shot by another Arab because he was from the wrong tribe or something of that nature. I thought I remember the term Bedouin being thrown around at one point. It almost makes me want to sit through the three hours of movie again to connect the words with the book.

It is fair to say that Waiting for an Angel looks at protests, or at least the story centers itself around two different protests. In class we have been reading and hearing quite a bit about the oil that Nigeria has and that the government steals a large portion of the profits. We also know that the people do not take this lying down, in the National Geographic article we even saw that there are militia's who organize and mobilize against the various oil firms. I cannot say for certain, without much more research (which maybe Kat will do again), but I think, in the case of militia's, this would be an extreme. The vast majority of people do not go from angry to violent revolt overnight, think the American Civil rights movement.

Much like our guest speaker Dr. Ogbomo told us, the majority of press about Nigeria was slanted toward the negative. There are more pieces written about the militants and their leader who was accused of treason. This really works for the companies that are in Africa. The world sees the Nigerian protesters as all militants and feels sorry that the companies are not able to conduct their capitalist business. Rarely do we see the public masses cheer for a group labeled "militants" or "terrorists" who "disrupt" production. Word with negative connotations, I am sure Ashley being better at journalism and words than me could explain that better.

There is a interesting correlation between the Nigerian police and the oil companies. Just like what we see in Waiting for an Angel, the police force uses just that, force, when it comes to protesters. What we have are protesters, not armed, simply holding a rally in protest of the drilling in Nigeria. Instead of letting the protest happen the oil company calls in the military who in turn kills five people. This isn't any ordinary military though, Mobile oil has their own police force that works in conjunction with the national police. The Mobile police are called "kill'em and go", I think the title is self explanatory. The companies, trough bribes I am sure, is allowed to have it's own police force and can conduct themselves in any way they please. Why not kill protesters? If you can get away with killing them, it sends a strong message that rallies and not to be held!

Waiting for an Angel

I loved the start of this book! It starts in prison, bonus! Political prisoners, writing poetry locked up. Then Lomba discovers that his captor is actually human when he talks to a woman from the outside. I loved how this went down. The Superintendent is viewed as nonhuman, a thing not a person. But toward the middle and end of that section Lomba discovers that he is a human "Even jailers fall in love". It reminds me of a part of The Wire, season 3 episode 2. Three police are out at the movies and from the movie across the hall two drug dealers they are always hassling and locking up walk out too. The line is "Huh, ya'll see movies too". Perfect. We never think of people in authority as "real people" "(even teachers and professors).


This novel gave of a sense of urgency at the beginning. I think it is because after the prison part we start with a character getting killed! What! Then we flashback to six months before the character being shot to a time where the three characters go to the beach and find a fortuneteller who tells the character is going to die and Lomba's future is only prison. We know what is going to happen in the end to two thirds of the main characters, so the story seems to be sprinting toward that ending. At any moment, what they do could automatically land them in jail or dead. Sadly, as I progressed through the novel this urgency tapered off, I wish it had held up throughout the entire book.

Wigs. I underlined wigs the first few times they were mentioned. Seems odd to me that African women would be wearing them, well, odd that revolutionaries would be wearing wigs. Wigs, to me, would have been ascribing to European hair trends, or at the least a European look. And you can't tell me that these student revolutionaries wouldn't have put it together that their current problem in the country wasn't linked back to European occupation. So, allowing yourself to go along with the hot trend of the time would have been very, anti-revolutionary. I thought it a unique point the author put in. I am not sure what he is trying to say with it, maybe that the revolutionary bug caught on so quickly people did not fully change their lives over to the African way?

Getting toward the end of the novel, the protest oddly reminds me of another essay I have read, Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers by Tom Wolfe. Wolfe's essay is meant to be funny and I don't think Waiting for an Angel was suppose to be, but when the bus of prostitutes came on the scene I started giggling some. Imagine 20 prostitutes stumbling out of a bus, to me that is comdey. It shows unity yes, but think of the big wigs they have on to boot, I am picturing beehive hair, in my mind this motely crew looks ridiculous.

Oil papers

Basically, Africa is useful. Cradle of creation, possible start of the human race. so why wouldn't they be filled with resources everyone wants. Rubber, gold, diamonds, oil, were they a developed country it would be great, however colonialization has set them back so far, with leadership and debt, any time resources the rest of the world wants is found, it turns into a great big mess. Natural gases has been the next big problem Africa is dealing with.

We know Africa hasn't had the best go of it. First, they were stripped of resources by European powers, leaving them destitute. Then the Europeans left and the people in charge were not much better, they had learned how to rule from the Europeans and that often meant, brutally with a perchance for embezzling money. Most of the time they do not have the means to take on massive building projects, like drill for oil so they must again turn to their friends the Westerners. Being keen for seizing an opportunity, the help for getting oil out of the ground is never free. The African nation can get equipment and help if they sign a long contract saying they will sell oil to the Western nation at a fixed price, good in the short run for the nation but once inflation hits they are now selling their best commodity below market value. You can imagine how this spirals out of control for the African nation.

If a nation has a leader who refuses to sell oil (or any commodity) to the Western powers at the price they want, it has been the norm to "get rid of" that leader. Coups, military coups,accidents and assassinations are just a few of the ways governments in Africa have been changed, and the overwhelming majority have changed to leaders with a very open policy toward nations, such as the United States.

I am trying to not repeat myself, I read the National Geographic article as part of an exploration. Untapped: The Scramble for Africa's Oil talked about two things in particular that I find interesting, rebels and prostitution. The rebel portion reminds me of an overlooked movie that came out after Blood Diamond called Catch a Fire. The movie was about south African apartheid, but a portion of it revolved around the African workers at a refinery. The main character is charged with blowing up the plant, taking out this plant would disrupt the government. I feel this is the same type of deal that the rebels in Nigeria are going for. Make running an industry int he country so expensive that eventually they just leave.

I forget where I heard about prostitution following industry, perhaps CNN or maybe it is because the same thing happened all through history, at least as old as the Roman Empire. Both articles spoke on how economies went down hill when oil is found, because people stop working on what they used to, farming goes down and imports go up. This is what leads to prostitution, what is a girl with no education going to do for money? Clearly, sell your body. It's sad but true, your body is a commodity that the men working int heir refineries or derrcks are not going to find readily. They are usually far away from home and if they do not move their family to the slum outside the plant they are men, far from home with a large, in their eyes, semi-disposible income. "beer and girls" that is what the Ghazvinian article said.

Diamonds

Mining for diamonds, the easiest way is to dig a pit in the ground until you hit ground water, usually 70 feet. Then you have workers pan through the soil that was taken out of the ground. If you look at the picture you can see the circular pan device that is used. You swirl the dirt around in that and the mud and such will come out while you do it, the diamonds will stay toward the bottom since they are heavier. Then you look through and pick out the diamonds.

There are different ways to get diamonds in Sierra Leone since there are different factions that control the diamond mines. The RUF will sometimes let people pan for diamonds for 4 days and pan for themselves 2 days. Or, what is more common is the two pile system. You are given two piles, one for the RUF one for you. Whatever you pan out of the RUF pile goes to them and whatever you pan for yourself you get to keep. Somehow more always comes out of the RUF piles though.

Quick history before the next portion, the RUF was a group who was trying to over through the government, for a while they were successful in controlling large parts of the country. The quick of it is, they controlled the diamond mines which could buy better weapons that the government had, therefore, they were a powerful fighting force known for brutality, but that is a different blog.

You might wonder why people would work for the RUF since they are also known for mutilation, rape , kidnapping...the list goes on. Well, if you work for the government you get a wage and if you do find a diamond that is worth selling you might receive a small reward. However, the reward is more like $2 though more than what they normally are paid this is not life changing money. Something else I learned, or more accurately was made aware of was the quality of diamonds. Most diamonds found are not the ones that go into rings and bling, they are industrial grade, used in cutters, or that machine at the dentist office that files down your teeth. These diamonds sell at very cheap prices, $80 a carat in the 2001 book I looked in. Workers are not getting rewarded on industrial diamonds, though it is 80% of the industry.

As for gem diamonds, they start out quite big, but after cutting it down, it can lose half its' size! Pictured below is the largest diamond taken from Sierra Leone (that has been recorded). It is called the Star of Sierra Leone, and it is huge... fairly sure I read that when it was found it was close to the size of a brick.

Ancestor Stones Part 3

First, where was that genital mutilation part? I do not remember reading that at all, perhaps part I glossed over.

Now on to the real post. I found the most interesting part of the story on a literary level how narration was set up. Each of the women had their own narrator voice, something I have not seen much in novels, especially with so many of them (I'm still having trouble remembering who is who).

Being that the book was written from the point of view of so many people, I find myself wondering how reliable they are as narrators and witnesses to events. I think this started when Asana fed us a line about her brothers death. It made me question other facts, like if Hawa's mother actually was the favorite, we are only getting that story from her point of view. Of course the daughter would want to think her mother was the favorite out of eleven wives, it is something to make you feel better, especially if you are lonely and have no one to play with.

There were times that I wondered if events actually occurred as they were being told, or if they were slightly different. The narrator was going on their own experience and we all have different views of events even if we are all there at the same time, same place. think what I am trying to say is, I read the lady's with a grain of salt and relied on my own background knowledge of the region.

I could not find any portions where the narrator seemed to know more than the person narrating the text might know. all the information provided seemed to be gained through years of experience and if whoever narrating at the time talked about events happening across the country it seems to be from what they heard of after the fact. Feel free to find any portions that dispute this, I would love to find them.

My final question about the book is the term "aunty". I know this was used int he South during and after slavery, Black women did not have proper names, it would be "aunty", some people had a problem with this. It makes me wonder if this was a European constuct and why Mariama thought it was a good term, and endearing term. Offhand I feel this has something to do with her postivie experience working for Mr. Blue.

Ancestor Stones Part 2

I want to write about matriarchal vs. patriarchal societies with Ancestor Stones. By the most basic of terms, I cannot find which would perfectly fit the novel. Sure, women we in charge of lots of things, the head wife was even in charge of the money and important things. That alone does not allow me to qualify this society as matriarchal. Nor can I qualify them as a matriarchal group because Madame Bah is a woman and owns her own shop.

We see that women were doing a lot of the house work and the work to maintain the compound. When we are introduced to Asana's mother she is maintaining the outer walls of her house. The wives are in charge of the cooking, cleaning and taking care of the children. These are all tasks normally associated with what Europeans would consider a good housewife. Clearly, the man was in charge of how many wives were taken; Asana's mother made suggestions since she was older and respected, but Asana's husband brought in a new wife whenever he felt he should. And the man is in charge of the labor that makes the families income, a role that is often seen in patriarchal societies.

One might argue that the women fish and that is normally viewed as a man's job, along the lines of hunting. However, we do hear mention of men fishing and it was men who build the dam to trap the fish in, so it is more that the women are going to a large barrel and using nets to gather some fish. Besides that, the fish were for consuming and preparing fish would have been the woman's task.

Divorce was allowed but it did not look like the woman had much say in it, or more so, women did not seem to be able to take advantage of it. We learn early on in the novel that to divorce someone you have to pay back the bride price, boom, divorce. Fun thing about bride price, the way we see divorce done was how the Talmud, book containing Jewish laws, ethics, customs and history, sets up divorce as a financial being. to me this establishes women as almost items that can be bought and returned. It also seemed that divorce did not have a negative connotation to it. In Europe, it would mean that the woman was not "pure" or the man had a xala problem. In Ancestor Stones, it could be any small excuse.

I am not in favor of saying this book is empowering to women. Note Asana. One of her co-wives was basically sold by her father so he could retool his barns. I particularly can't say that is surprising or horrible because the same thing happened in Europe all the time. We saw King Leopold II marry of his daughters to expand his empire all the time. Asana somewhat had a choice of who she married, she pleaded with her dad to see the man that become her husband, but in the end I feel that the dad could have vetoed that decision.

Ancestor Stones Part 1

I am starting this blog after only finishing the first chapter. I cannot believe Asana narrates things that aren't true! She was pulling on my heart string with her brothers last words being the answer to the riddle they were telling before they saw the white man. But no, on the next page, come to find out, that did not happen at all. Needless to say I am currently mad at Asana and will now treat her as an unreliable narrator, and no, she does not get credit for correcting herself. That's just how it is, I don't write the rules.

If I dare look past Asana's transgressions of being a lying child, in my eyes, I became quite intrigued by the scene with the white man, for many different reasons. Note, eggs are still considered special and that children should not have them. This was mirrored from, real life I assume and, Things Fall Apart where only spoiled children ate eggs. I find this interesting because cultures are quite fluid. What might be a taboo for one generation is not so for the next, maybe I was thinking that after "awesome" colonization that some of these old ways might be gone. As of 1926, I suppose they haven't.
Speaking of colonization, how has Asana not seen a white man? Perhaps, due to her young age, but they were certainly around. Were they not even talked about in her family? I was taken aback by her shock and awe in regards to the white man. Though her description of him was quite amazing, moon shadow, what a great phrase.
Finally, in regards to the white man, when Alusani started getting sick I assumed it was from malaria or small pox, some white person disease, you know, due to the fact that Alusani was spending time around a white man and eating his food. Germs are everywhere and contagious, mass biological genocide happens! I'm not sure Alusani did not have a European disease, Asana says it would be called a brain tumor these days, but first of all, I do not know which "these days" she is referring to and second, I don't totally believe her since I again won't take her as a 100% reliable narrator.

Is anyone else having trouble figuring out how these women are related? I cannot figure if Mariama is a wife just like the Asana's mother or is married to someone else? Regardless, Mariama has an interesting life, her mother works, slightly, making snuff. For some reason I think that is cool, probably because I think rolling your own cigarettes is cool too, though I don't smoke. Even mor eintersting is that Mariama's mother is not Muslim or Christian. As a narrator I don't think it was described how much of a force these two religions were/are. Either one would kill you for not conforming. If they did not kill you, you certainly were second class citizens for not being Muslim or Christian. I view that as strength, not Rama or the wives in Xala, Miriama's mom is going against so many laws and social taboo's, that is revolutionary.

I have to say, surprisingly I am enjoying this book. I think Toni Morrison took it out of me this weekend beating me in the head for 200 pages that black is viewed as ugly and white is beautiful. I thought that this book would also be something along those lines, thank goodness it is not. Such a great book talking about firsts. First time seeing a white man, first time looking in a mirror. It gives off a hopefully vibe for the start of the book. I wish this book would be great as a primary source, I wish it was one!

Xala

You don't need to read further than the first page to get the first jab at post-colonial African countries. Just as our previous readings of Walter Rodney and Frantz Fanon tell us, when colonial powers leave they also leave a structure. Though clearly the structure is broken and harms the people it is too easy for those revolutionaries to use it as their own. Perhaps that is due to the lack of education and foresight, who knows. The beginning of Xala, we see the main character and his friends taking over the Chamber of Commerce, since they were all business men. It is important to note that the main character El Hadji has some nefarious activities going on. He acts as a front for overseas investors. I read this to mean that, El Hadji is the African face of European businesses in the country. It is as if the European's never left, the only difference is they must now give money to one more African, a small price to pay to continue to run the industry. The beggar whoever likes El Hadji, when El Hadji gets back after getting rid of the xala. A very nice gesture by someone who has been arrested after phone calls from El Hadji.

Did anyone notice El Hadji's interaction with the beggar? He hates the beggar, to say the least and has him arrested on several occasions. Then look at how he acts with everyone else, throwing thousand franc notes around left and right. Why wouldn't he spare some money to the beggar but be willing to give money to facc-katt's and seet-katt's? I think the beggar is suppose to represent the common man, the poor man or the unemployed class in the country. As a business man El Hadji has no use for him so he finds him an annoyance. Everyone else serves a purpose or a task for El Hadji, but the singing/begging simply annoys him. El Hadji is a former revolutionary, a champion of the people, not put in power; his job is to help out people like the beggar, but alas, he ignores the beggar just as the French colonial power would have.

I began to wonder if the whole impotance is Yay Bineta fault? She had two husbands die on her and the old wives tale was that she was destined to kill a third. Yay claims that her "daughter's" marriage was like her own, and we see this with how she makes it happen and is always riding El Hadji (much like a wife). El Hadji being impotent is a little less than death, since he did not technically marry Yay Benita. And one could make the argument that being impotent was worse than death, he lost face and couldn't function as a human being.

It seems pretty obvious that the xala was an effect of acting European. But the business men are fake Europeans or a satire of it. My favorite line includes the phrase "made to measure" suits, the African's are trying to look refined and Europeans but their suits are bought off of the rack. Their European persona's don't fit them. Anyway, El Hadji fixes his xala problem by going off the road, so to speak, and getting back to his African roots. The third marriage was based around money and not love to begin with. At first it was on the brides side, she needed to marry to get out of her fathers house since he couldn't afford all his children. Then it became monetary for El Hadji, he, clearly, had to pay for the huge reception that would show him as a man of means, buy another villa and thent here was the car and gasoline. Money, which is rooted in European culture more than African, was the downfall of a mighty revolutionary.

For the fun of it read Xala and look for all the allusions toward male genital or erections, the novel is full of them.

"I maintain that every civil rights bill in this country was passed for white people, not for black people. "

Anyone I can relate to the "Black Power" movement is going to get blogged about, especially when I can link them to the Black Panthers.

Stokely Carmichael first came to pominance when he became the president of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Most famously they are known for voter registration and being harassed in the South when they moved their voter champaign down there. I'm not saying it worked, since all the people of power were white the registrations were often considered invalid. This was the group however who famously brought attention to Mississippi that summer after three SNCC workers (two white and one black) went missing. Good ole J Edgar Hoover had to send his FBI to investigate and found their bodies...and other black people who had disappeared that summer in the Mississippi Delta area, but naturally did not garner attention because they were black and it was the South.

Well, he only stuck around for about a year because he went heavy on the Black Power kick. He quit SNCC and joined up with my favorite group the Black Panther Party. The Panthers were more proactive than SNCC, more in your face, much more fun to read about. However, eventually, the same issue popped up as it had in SNCC before, Carmichael believed that white people should organize in their communities first before helping black lead activists, whereas the Panthers were willing to take help from anywhere at time.

Thus started Stokely Carmichael in Africa. He and his wife, a South African singer, moved to Guinea and he became an aid to the then Prime Minister Ahmed Sekou Toure.
Carmichael's progress from Black Power to the Pan-African struggle is simply taking his civil rights beliefs up a notch. His separatist views were exactly what the African people needed at that time. Their countries, for upwards of hundreds of years, were being run by either white people or the people whom the white man put in charge. Obviously, the powers that be were not going to allow Africans to have their own government and run it themselves so a clean break from everything white was probably the best idea out there. Some might see this as shortsighted and racists in it's own right but you really have to look at the times to understand how this made sense. One hundred years after the abolition of slavery black people were still considered second class. Forget the lunch counter indignities, or that in the South they would call you boy, this goes so much deeper. You couldn't vote and participate in this democracy but you could still fight its wars for it, three generations of African-Americans (and much more than that for Africans) fought in wars hoping that when they came home they would finally be viewed as equals, but instead wearing the uniform in New York City, a northern "progressive" city could get you lynched to a lamp post. I too would want to separate fully away from the society and people that were doing this to me!

Oh man, Stokely was at it til the end, blaming his cancer on the FBI and CIA. This might seem ridiculous, but if you see what those two government organization did over the years to black activists and anyone who they didn't like (say Fidel Castro), it isn't too far fetched. for years after the Black Panther Party went defunct Huey P. Newton (not the real Huey in the video), co-founder, had his house bugged and was followed by plain clothed cops, among other harder to prove accusations like staged gunfights to try and draw him out and robberies. Most Panthers ended up dead or in jail, some at the hands of police...sometimes still sleeping in their beds. Cancer as a conspiracy, perhaps not, but what else was the government doing to the man who attempted to empower black people and help Africa rise up?

And finally, think of the Carmichael quote that is my title. Think about the laws and who passed them, and when they were passed. These civil rights laws are something our classrooms hold up in teaching that we are a progressive society who does the right thing. Makes you feel warm and fuzzy that we have a law to show we no longer discriminate doesn't it? Taints that feeling when you realize that a law had to be put in place to make everyone equal doesn't it?

How Europe Underdeveloped Africa

On the first day that we discussed King Leopold's Ghost in class it was brought up that the European slave trade decimated the African economy by turning all the nations into trade based nations who were dependent on Europe for simple good like clothe and food. It should be looked at that one of the reasons Europeans used to justify turning Africa into a trade entity was to help them become civilized, because capitalism meant they were civilized. However, this was not capitalism, capitalism implies that the African nations would be producing goods to sell to Europe, and by no stretch of anyone's imagination, should people be considered a manufactured good.

Well, when Europe finally had to give their colonies independence they concocted other ingenious ways to keep reaping the benefits of Africa (and the United States hopped on board too). There was always the option of puppet leaders, America liked to go that route in Latin America and that hasn't turned out too well. Eventually, you can't control the people you put in control and assassination is too messy so there has to be a better route. If you can't control the country through puppet leaders then the next logical thing that Western nations did was buy up all the resources in Africa. You spin it like this, you are going to come in and put the equipment in place, high a work force so the people have jobs, build towns, schools, roads and pay taxes. You are an underdeveloped African nation, you have no way of getting the resource out of the ground on your own so it is the best deal going. That is how land gets sold to foreign interests, never mind that you will only follow through with the parts of the deal that aid your company, it was better than when you came in so you were doing a service while robbing them blind.

I was surprised by the trickery of these companies and the governments they controlled. Outlawing the growing of cash crops so the workers had no other choice but to work for the Europeans. That's just unbelievable, even I couldn't think of that!

My, sickly, favorite part of Rodney's article was how much people were paid. Europeans working in Africa were paid 10 times more than their darker skinned counterparts. You might say, why does not anyone say something about this or quit. But the fact of the matter is that if you do, then you get fired and instead of 4 pounds a week you get nothing. To me, it seemed like slavery all over again, this time it actually might be costing less. They had to feed, clothe and keep slaves healthy because they were an investment, but a worker only needs to get paid enough to stay, and if he goes there will be some other poor sap willing and able to do his job. Reminded me of sharecroppers, ending slavery in the South actually made the plantation owners richer than when slavery was going on.

As a history major I love Walter Rodney, he has some spot on research for the 1970's. Take the numbers and information in chapter 4 about the slave trade. Rodney excellently pinpointed that 15-20% of the slaves would often die in journey. Of course, this numbers could have been cooked by captains trying to make themselves look better as slave traders. A few things should e noted, most of the deaths occurred close tot he coast when slaves were required to stay below deck so they wouldn't try and jump overboard and get back to land. Being down below the entire time would create hot conditions that caused dehydration. Dehydration, rather than disease was the killer of the slave trade. Also, later in the slave trade, as sailing technology advanced deaths of slaves sharply dropped because shipbuilders figured out ways to store more water on the ships, making it enough for bot sailors and slaves. If it makes you feel any better, slaves were given water over the sailors because sailors cost money and slaves made money.

Conrad isn't that hot

I like Heart of Darkness, but at the same time I do not like Heart of Darkness. I know it is suppose to be one of the best pieces of literature ever written, but I have issues with it, aside from Conrad's portrayal of Africans that was covered in the last blog. I kinda thought I was on my own with those feelings but apparently Chinua Achebe beat me to the punch.

I love what Chinua Achebe says in the beginning in response to a young Yonkers Native that enjoyed the strange customs of Africa in Things Fall Apart. think for a second, don't just gloss over my blog, what kind of strange things do you do. Imagine that you haven't always grown up in the United States and only saw it in a quick glimpse. Let me tell you of a few things I thought up, aside from religions being funny (like wine turning into a Jewish mans blood to wine or eggs on Easter), how about people wearing the same things every Sunday to help their team out? The superstition at Western that if you step on the W by the library you will fail your first exam? Or think way back, when you had a Nintendo that you and only you were able to fix your own game cartridges, even though all people blow the same way?

I like that Achebe says that he refuses to accept Conrad's account of Africa in Heart of Darkness. I too do not want to take his word for it just because I have never set foot in Africa. Look at Sir Henry Stanley, we know now that he made up large portions of his stories and books but at the time they were taken as gospel because no one could disprove him. Plus it is a book, books even ones based on facts normally construe and exaggerate facts to make something sell. How can we be sure he did not make up things or use words to sell his book. Like him being fixated on blackness. His description of black people was obviously slanted to be sold to a certain crowd, who is to say Conrad didn't make up the bulk of his journey, people do it all the time!

Toward the end of his writing Achebe gives Conrad some credit for his writing. Conrad told of porters who crawled off to the side of the road to die. Give credit for him showing how Europeans mistreated the Africans they "hired". I will begrudging give him credit for showing Africans suffering. My thoughts are this, I don't think Conrad knew how to illustrate African's through the story and I can understand why. It's kinda like class the other week when no one wanted to come out and say that Roger Casement was gay, it is a taboo still in society. For Conrad, Africans would still be a taboo, Africans not Black people mind you. How do you represent a person/ group of people that you have nothing in common with? How do you adequately represent what you want to get across to the audience knowing that they do not have a heavy background in all things Africa? This is like a when you write your first research paper. You do all sorts of research and you are ready to show off EVERYTHING you know, despite if it fits or not. This is the problem I see in Conrad, he has so much to tell, so much he has seen and he wants to fit it all into his story. But, to prove a point you need to stick with one side of the story, not just shotgun everything you can think of into the work.

"I don't see any method at all, sir."

The first time I read Heart of Darkness it did not really have any bite to it. I didn't really have a background built about the Congo region so I wasn't sure what to make of Conrad's book; second time around I have a greater respect for it (though I find it winded at points).

I love what Conrad does with the Kurtz situation, we get the feeling that most people do not like him and we hear even wish him death. I like this part because it keeps me a little more grounded. It is hard to read a history book like King Leopold's Ghost and not assume subconsciously that all Europeans were in on this big conspiracy to suck Africa dry of it's resources. I have to remember that they were all human being and susceptible to human emotions like envy and greed. They weren't all there working together to hold the African down, they were there on business. True, they were all there emaciating African villages but they weren't thinking grand scale, they were thinking about making a profit for themselves. Remember too, many of the people working in the Congo were not from Belgium, they were adventure seekers and people who wanted money. A few years in the Congo meeting ivory incentives could turn a small fortune for a man and Kurtz is making them all jealous

I don't know what to make of the cannibal reference. I realize the African says that he would eat the others that were threatening the ship, but look at it this way. Their meat was thrown out by the white people because it smelled bad, so now their diet consists of things the author doesn't really know what it is. I don't relish the thought but if I were working all day cutting wood with very little food to go on, I would eat a person. I'm not a vegetarian, let's be honest, I wouldn't go more than a week without substantial eating before I thought of tasting a human (cooked mind you!). But with Conrad labeling the Africans helping him as cannibals is really detrimental to the view of Africans in the eyes of Western readers! One could go on to assume that most Africans, perhaps mainly the helpful ones, enjoy eating humans. This sets Africans back, just as they are gaining ground to becoming, people in the eyes of Western society Conrad says they still eat humans! This is so frustrating, especially since it is often said that this book is about the horrors of colonialism. I'm done, on this note Conrad is frustrating me, feel free to finish my thoughts.

Did anyone catch the gender roles going on in the third part when they actually meet Kurtz and his village. When they see the lady decked out in all the ivory she is tabbed as Kurtz' mistress and that she is part of the reason that he is going "off the reservation" so to say. Isn't this just like early 1900's men to claim a woman must be behind such a great man's downfall! It comes from the image that a woman is either a good subservient housewife, or she is the cause of any change or problem of the man. I'm not sure what to make of this, I'm not a fan of all of Conrad's portrayals of African's in Heart of Darkness. But, giving an African woman the same traits as he would someones wife back in England means that he considers the African lady to be part of his shared society. Just a little something to think about.

Random question, what do you make of it that the decapitated of African's are facing inward toward Krutz' house?

My still favorite part though is the quote that was stolen to use in Apocalypse Now "the horror the horror" (scene not for the animal lovers). However, I digress, such a small line but really powerful and interesting to think about. If you go and read Wikipedia (which I am sure you did) or many other sources about Heart of Darkness it is interpreted that Marlow thinks Kurtz is reflecting on everything he did when making his famous last lines. That's nice and all, but I am more pessimistic than Marlow/Conrad. And yes I realize I am probably arguing against the author himself, but he is dead so he can not come and say I'm wrong. We have Kurtz out there chopping peoples heads off, doing other dirty deeds, we can use our King Leopold imagination to figure out more devious business he was probably doing. We also know that Europeans felt justified and were encouraged to do these things. What if Kurtz was talking about the Africans, what if his final statement was about the people he was dying around. Does that change how you read the end of the book. Think about it from the angle of a European who was dying away from home surrounded by people he was oppression not his loved ones, maybe then you exclaim "the horror".

So yeah, this happened...

I want to back up to some pages we read for Tuesday. I really, morbidly, enjoyed the note taking that people did about what they did to the natives. I know, ethically it is wrong, but the massacring happened so why not give us some information on it. It reminds me of the meticulous note taking that the Nazi's took from concentration camps; except the Congo diaries were not shut away from the public. As a historian, I think it is great they took such grotesque notes. First of all, it provides primary sources which are heaven on pages for us. Second, it makes sure no one forgets what an atrocity is. I am going to go on a limb here and guess that many of these acts carried out by the Europeans disturbed you while reading. Even though I have a pretty deep background in slavery and colonization, the amount of lashes a person could receive was astounding! 100, sometimes 25 can kill a person. And the pouring of salt and pepper into wounds, that's sadistic to say the least. And the taking of right hands, it was pretty clear that the officials put no price on an African life. What struck me was how the Belgium's felt about Africans, if not written down through their actions. Despite the high death rate in the Caribbean and South America, slaves were considered an investment, like a car. You want to take care of the car, so it doesn't die on you before it's time is up. Slaves in the Western Hemisphere weren't starved, and things like cutting off hands or feet were detrimental to them working. I realize it is odd to think of one type of slavery being better than another, but it really puts things into perspective for me. Africa, was not a good place to be in the 1800's.

The point of King Leopold's Ghost where I exasperated out loud for Leopold to give it up was on page242 when the Confederate general, who had previously supported King Leopold in obtaining Congo, railed against the atrocities going on there. I realize this was so he could try and convince African-Americans to move there, but still, when you can't get a man who doesn't like people of African decent to agree with you, it is time to throw in the towel. It is actually nice of Senator Morgan to take the side of the Congo because one could make the argument that if he wanted to tow the Belgium party line he would try to convince everyone in America that no atrocities were going on. I know this is a stretch and a hard sell going against Mark Twain, but if I were a racist in the South that is the route I would have gone, and tried to get on the bribery money train!

It amazes, much like the author of this book, that this crisis in Africa was never ever mentioned in my education. The United States seems to only want to record atrocities when they intervene in time. There isn't a lack of sources on record about what was happening in the Congo and elsewhere in Africa, so the logical step is that is is simply overlooked. Had the United States stepped in early on and stopped what was happening you can believe that it would be trumpeted as democracy stepping in and righting a wrong. I have not seen a text book actually include the Rwanda massacre in 1994, maybe now that multiple movies have been made about it this will change, but it still took over a decade for even that to happen. We like to view ourselves as smart, so smart that we are able to go out and right wrongs that we find occurring in the world. However, we only do this if we are the first to find these wrongs and correct them so we can chalk it up to good old American knowhow.

Many of you in class were really hard on yourself about not knowing that this happened, maybe thinking yourself ignorant of large situations. I have to reassure you on this, not a large group of people do know about this. I was talking to a former history professor before class, he teaches but like all history doctors has diversified over the years. He'd heard of what went on but had not read this book yet, and he's a doctor of history. I also think back to when I was intern teaching. My mentor and I taught Global Studies (which meant whatever we wanted since there was no book) she went to college in the 80's and was appalled that she had never heard of South African Apartheid before entering college. This is what college is for, to finally spread your wings and learn things that high school teachers couldn't touch. Basically, don't beat yourself up over it, if you knew everything about the Worlds history then...well clearly you wouldn't be here and I'd be asking you to be on my future Master's team!

Do you have a flag?

I have done a lot of work on colonization and slavery in Africa, there was an entire class of it at the 400 level in History a few years ago. There really wasn't anything about the facts of colonization that shocked our surprised me. However, the players were different, I have never looked at Belgium as a colonialist, most courses focus on Britain or the French if you are lucky.

I have to give King Leopold II credit for never giving up on his dream of a colony. His first attempts, like trying to drain lakes to make a colony seem pretty ridiculous to me, possible, but not the smartest route. At that point of his life he seemed like an excited child who found a way to get a new toy. Then he really stepped up his efforts and tried finding new areas. There were countless times where his plans were shot down or hit road bumps, at any of these times he could have given up, but not Leopold he powered through that. I think it goes to show the overwhelming feeling in Europe at the time. Everyone knew that the next step to being the world leader wasn't in Europe but abroad, so every European nation wanted to grab as much land around the world as possible.

Whenever I hear someone proclaim in classes that they cannot understand how nations can go to a land with people already on it and claim it as their new found land, Eddie Izzard pops into my head.

Colonization, flags are key. This is partially true, depending what flag you fly under is the country that can claim your exploits. Well, flags and guns. That is what made Henry Morton Stanley so useful for King Leopold, his first expeditions were not for any country it was paid for by his employers. Since the papers he was working for did not want to claim any parts of Africa he was exploring, it made the world view Stanley as a neutral explorer, safe to be employed by Belgium and King Leopold's sneaky land grab in Africa. Oh, and the last thing is that if you claim a river as your countries you get all the tributaries, hence why King Leopold's claim kept getting larger (same applied to the French and the Mississippi River).

My favorite part of the first 100 pages of King Leopold's Ghost was how King Leopold worked his treaties. In the initial conference in Berlin Leopold managed to get his territory by telling the nations, like Germany and America, that his Congo would be free of tariffs. This would be very appealing because it would let the countries import goods and still sell them at a large profit. This all went out the window when at the Anti-Slavery Conference King Leopold was given the go ahead to levy imports so the King could aid in the war against the Barbary slave trade. It is good to note that the Barbary slave trade and white slavery ended in the 1830's. So either Europeans were being nice and caring about African's enslaving other Africans or the powers that be were exploiting old feelings for their own uses.

The Boers and their wars

I need to start sitting closer to Allen because the topic I really wanted was the Zulu, however, when we first picked topics I confused the Berbers with the Boers so it only seems fitting.
The Netherlands is a small country but during the imperialistic phase of Europe they did not want to be left out. Not being powerhouses on the military front they did not try and claim massive amount of land, instead they picked prime locations that they could use for trading. This was primarily how the British started their conquests as well, doing it through commerce and then later bringing in their government and people.

The word Boer actually means farmer in Dutch so calling someone a Boer means they work the land, lower class as well, obviously. They settled in Africa after the initial commerce period, namely in what is now South Africa. Here's the short of how it all went down. The Boers had very independent spirit and liked slavery. After the Dutch were beaten in a in the early 1800's they lost control of most of their imperial lands, the British took them over. The Brits outlawed slavery in 1833, so a few years after that the Boers packed their stuff up and went searching for new lands they could have and keep slaves. They moved North and East as shown on the map.
Obviously these new lands were already occupied, by the Zulu people. Being European, they felt it was their right and destiny to have the land. Accounts vary as to how everything transpired but there ended up being a great battle between the Boers and Zulus. Though outnumbered the Boers had guns compared to the short thrusting spears and sticks of the Zulu. It was basically a massacre. I mentioned this show, Last Man Standing, before in a blog post but here is a small clip of what the sticks and shields look like. If you are not a fan of blood you should stop before a the 1:29 mark. But it does show you how effective the Zulu warriors could have been in war...not against guns. As with most conquests the Boers thought it was gods will to win the battle against the Zulu because they prayed and promised if they won they, the Boers, would commemorate the day as a Sabbath. And really, if God wasn't on their side then he would have made them lose the battle, right?
For a while the Boers and British lived in peace, after all they were both white and white was right. It is funny what happens next because it has been the same throughout the next two centuries when Africa is involved. Around 1868 diamonds were found in the two new areas the Boers lived. Clearly, the Boers could not have the resources, so the British annexed the large area called Transvaal. Time passed and resentment of English rule grew and in 1880 the first shots of The First Boer War were fired. It wasn't a war in a grand sense but fighting still happened. The Boers being natives to the land and farmers fought with guerrilla tactics and for some reason the British still used their red coats which made them prime targets in the jungle. Fighting only lasted a year before the British felt it would not prove profitable, they let the Boers govern over themselves with British oversight, besides they had the diamond mines.

The British acted a bit too soon because in 1886 large gold deposits were found in Transvaal, renewing a reason to own it for the British. What led up to the violent conflict is long, drawn out and pretty complicated, it would take pages to fully tell, just know that eventually in 1899 war was declared. Being slow on the uptake the British still did not get that the Boers moved light, were excellent shots and fought a different war than the British wanted. Plus the Boers were better equipped this time, at the onset of war they lay siege to three towns under British control and were successful on all three attempts. This was considered the first phase of the war.
The Second phase looked more kindly on the British who used size over tactics. It took numerous attempts by the British but they were finally able to capture back cities and the capital of Tranvsaal, Pretoria. The British fared better in this second part because many of the battle involved large numbers of men and really went away from the guerrilla tactics that are usually the bread and butter of small forces.
The third phase is my favorite part. Boers split into small commando units, went back to the where they were from and started making raids to harass the British. Very much like what I said about The Battle for Algiers. They knew the locals so could count on them for help and hiding. This made it impossible for the British to hold control. Much like American's saw in Vietnam, once the occupying force physically left the area, they no longer held sway over it. So now the British implemented two horrific ways to control the Boers. The first was the scorched earth policy, where you simply burn everything in your wake, this way there are no supplies for the enemies (or innocent people but they come second to the motherland). Oh yeah, and they set up concentration camps! Same thing applies to what comes into your head when you hear about them, poor hygiene, little food and rampant disease.
In the end these extreme policies helped the British win the war and they were able to fold the lands into their Empire. They allowed the Boers some freedom of state, but in the end were accountable to the British throne. High five Britain you successfully killed off 50,000 Boers in a two year span. Isn't colonization fun!

Pics from the Village of Umuofia

I chose this image first because I did not think that any buildings would be two stories. It is just an odd personal bias that I had, even knowing that the Europeans were there and they would try to make it look as much like home as possible, I never thought they would try and take a building two stories. Oddly to me, it looks like the structure was made with clay just like Things Fall Apart said. This seems like poor planning on the part of the Europeans because after the rainy season every year clay will deteriorate and it will get harder and harder to make the structure stay standing or not leaning like the Tower of Pisa. The more I spend time looking at the picture the more I think it might just have vaulted ceilings. How odd is it that that second floor would be a balcony. Very European, reminds me of antebellum South.
Apparently I am stuck on looking at the buildings of the Ibo people, probably because they are different than what I expected to see. Like I said before there was always mention of clay, having to rebuild the walls, cover them with palms so they would not wash away in the rains and so on. This structure shown is more of a thatched structure taking the roof almost all the way to the ground. When I was thinking of buildings from Things Fall Apart I was thinking that they would have large clay walls with only the thatching on top as a roof. To me this makes more sense as perhaps a barn to store the yams, aside from water seeping in on the ground. I think I can wrap my head around that more because we never get a description of what the barns look like and because this seems very large for one persons house. As people brought up in class it did not seem like the Ibo were very wasteful with their goods and this too would mean space. This large of a structure would seem like a waste of space on a compound.

I don't have many insightful things to say about this picture I just liked how intricately carved the walking sticks are. I for one thin we should all have canes such as these because it adds flair. Ladies, you could have different colored ones to match the outfit of the day, it could be the shoe of the 21st century. I imagine these walking sticks were either for elders or respected members of society. It might be that the figures carved on the sticks are that persons chi; it could act as a little way to keep them with you at certain events or functions. Better yet they may belong to the people who act as the nine gods in the ceremonies, like the trail. Since the designs are so intricate I imagine they have something to do with stature, not everyone woukld be able to acquire one.

"Things Fall Apart and MC's unraveling"

I read Things Fall Apart for the first time in 8th grade and years later when I was introduced to the music group The Roots the first album I heard was entitled Things Fall Apart. Whenever the book is mentioned this song runs through my head. Enjoy while you read.



What hit me first was the wrestling portion, not because I am a guy and it exudes all things manly, but because the atmosphere was easy to place. The loud music, people gathered around, it could be any sporting event, except maybe cricket, those matches are pretty quiet. To visualize this event was easy as well, last year Discovery Channel put out a show where American and British athletes travel around the world competing in other cultures sporting events. One of these events was wrestling in Senegal, decently close to where Ibo lands would be. Same rules seemed to apply from the television show and the book, where the winner was the person who was thrown to their back and you challenged your opponent by pointing to them from across the circle.

It always amazes me how missionary's conduct themselves while in foreign lands looking for converts. Chinua Achebe shows two different approaches that colonialism applied when taking over regions. The first approach used by Mr. Brown gives respect to the Ibo people. Mr. Brown wants to co-exist with the Ibo people not pressing the religion or European changes on the people. Well, that is to say it isn't Christianity or death for the Umuofia people. It looks like Mr. Brown is trying to let the education and advancement of the Ibo people. Once people became educated then they would see the flaws of their old way of living, as well as, their old gods. Reverend James Smith on the other hand acted as we see in history books that most colonialist acted. Mr. Brown was settling for small steps forward, treating the Ibo as if they were people, not savages that needed to be tamed. Rev. Smith wanted perfection of what they were being taught about Christianity, there would be no half steps in the education. It was as if Rev. Smith did not like the fact that he was converting the Ibo people so he wanted only a few of them to become converts. I don't think it would be far fetched to think that Rev. Smith would try to displace or terminate the majority of the Umuofia to simply be done with the Ibo people.

That brings us to colonization and the Abame tribe. With what happened to the Abame tribe it really illustrates Europe's view toward the people of Africa and just how far they are willing to go to bend the entire continent to their will. A white man appears in their village, they consult the oracle and then kill the white man who came on his bicycle. There is a wealth of option the white people had, perhaps to go into the village and speak a language that would make sense to them. Instead, the colonists, or more likely the government, waited until a market day and slaughtered everyone. This shows deliberate planning on the parts of the white attackers, they knew enough about the culture of the area to wait until a day where the vast majority of the tribe, men women and children, would be in one central location. A planned brutal massacre. This also shows the mind set of what Europeans thought of the African people, one European was worth the entire tribe of Africans.

I find it interesting that Achebe taps in a source of shared history that many people who would be colonized seem to have. In Things Fall Apart the oracle offers forth that the white man would be the destruction of the tribe and when one came more would follow. Reading for another class this weekend I found that many Native American tribes had the same prophecies before massive colonization of the America's. There is often a big deal made that different cultures have simular myths and legends. For example, all cultures have a flood story of some kind and there is always a creation story. It is interesting to see that both Native Americans and Africans claim that their oracles or dreams. It brings up an interesting question however, did these predictions actually take place before the entrance of white colonization or was it created as an afterthought to continue to justify the elders and gods? I tend to think that these stories were made up after the fact so the elders would not be questioned by their tribes as to why they did not see such a disaster coming. Besides that, if such a warning was given and you lived your life according to the oracle then how do you, as the oracles followers, not listen to them and get rid of the white people when they come.

One part I must make note of is the seeming ignorance of Okonkwo of the slave trade and of white people. I know that the slave trade in this region dealt mainly around the coast and the Umuofia tribe was much further inland than most traders would go, but where did Okonkwo think he got his gun, or where they were getting the razors that they were shaving their heads with? Slave trade was quite prevalent even before Europeans were looking for their alternative work force. The slave trade was inter-tribal and came from such occasions like wars, simply kidnapping or, as shown in the book, as penance for breaking laws. It became common practice for the tribes of the coast area to use their newly aquired European goods to obtain more slaves, this in turn caused more wars to be fought, since that was primarially where slaves came from. Okonkwo was made ignorant of white men, only having heard of them in passing, which again given his European goods seems unlikely. I realize this is nitpicking a wonderful book by Achebe and that the resources on the slave trade are relatively new in comparison to the book, it seemed like a valid point to bring up since it was the "new" white threat that ulimately brought down Okonkwo. It is interesting to note that two of the worst things that happen to Okonkwo, his exile and his death where brought about by Europeans. Machete's don't explode like cheap guns do, eliminate their presence from afar bringing the gun then you eliminate Okonkwo's exile and give the story an entirely new look.