Many Europeans hoped to assimilate African students by bringing them to Europe and educating them in some of their finest schools. Unfortunately, these Europeans mainly acted in their own interests rather than the interest of the students. The British, for example, recruited promising students from wealthy and influential African families with the idea that they would eventually return to Africa as political leaders and would be “sympathetic to the interests of the British ruling class” (Adi 72).
Still others wanted Africans to fully assimilate to European culture, losing their own identity and heritage in the process. The racism and the racial restrictions present in Europe would likely influence an African there to be ashamed or try to shed his “African-ness” but many African intellectuals did quite the opposite. While some may have completely embraced or rejected Western civilization, I think the majority of African intellectuals were somewhere in the middle, incorporating only parts of Western civilization into their own lives.
Instead of returning home to be influential in politics there, many Africans remained and got involved in European politics. Some “were often able to play a pivotal role in the development of the politics of resistance to slavery, colonialism, and European imperialism” (Adi 70). Additionally, “the African presence itself” was influential to the social and political conditions in Europe (Adi 71).
Rather than lose their African identity in order to fully immerse themselves in a European identity, many sought “to rehabilitate the black race” (Wilder 156). Intellectuals such as Damas, Senghor, and Cesaire used their European schooling to their advantage. In Paris, what eventually came to be known as the movement of “Negritude” started out as “‘interminable discussions’ among students who shared ideas” (Wilder 156). However, with their recommitment to their African culture some completely shunned any ties to European culture. For example, one woman was ridiculed for identifying with her white heritage and marrying a white man (Wilder 154).
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Short Essay 7
For Europeans, the African was perceived as being new and exotic as well as savage and inferior to the white race. The former was greatly used in advertising and entertainment while the latter was used as propaganda to discourage interracial relationships and to justify the European conquest of Africa. African culture was extremely popular, especially in the early twentieth century, giving Europeans a temporary escape from the familiar and the mundane.
The African “seemed to offer…a source for renewal and a means for celebrating life and sexuality” (Berliner 206) that the European wanted to explore and exploit without damaging their own reputations. This sexuality was admired by Europeans, but the fear of interracial sex was overwhelming. “Blackness” was viewed as symbolic of “sin, death, ignorance, sexual deviancy, virility, fecundity”, thus further promoting the supposed purity of the white race (Archer-Straw 24). In theater, Africans were often half-naked and running wild, while Europeans appeared to be more refined and sophisticated in order to justify Africa’s conquest (Archer-Straw 31) and to make Africans appear to be terrifying.
In the nineteenth century, the African continent was still only beginning to be explored so it was essentially unknown to the majority of Europeans, “fuelling fantiasies for the driven, disillusioned and disaffected of Europeans society who sought a place either to lost, to find or to expand oneself” (Archer-Straw 29). African culture was exciting for Europeans, especially music and dancing. In the early twentieth century, jazz became very popular and black entertainers were very common in Parisian clubs (Berliner 209).
The African “seemed to offer…a source for renewal and a means for celebrating life and sexuality” (Berliner 206) that the European wanted to explore and exploit without damaging their own reputations. This sexuality was admired by Europeans, but the fear of interracial sex was overwhelming. “Blackness” was viewed as symbolic of “sin, death, ignorance, sexual deviancy, virility, fecundity”, thus further promoting the supposed purity of the white race (Archer-Straw 24). In theater, Africans were often half-naked and running wild, while Europeans appeared to be more refined and sophisticated in order to justify Africa’s conquest (Archer-Straw 31) and to make Africans appear to be terrifying.
In the nineteenth century, the African continent was still only beginning to be explored so it was essentially unknown to the majority of Europeans, “fuelling fantiasies for the driven, disillusioned and disaffected of Europeans society who sought a place either to lost, to find or to expand oneself” (Archer-Straw 29). African culture was exciting for Europeans, especially music and dancing. In the early twentieth century, jazz became very popular and black entertainers were very common in Parisian clubs (Berliner 209).
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Short Essay 6
In the minds of Europeans in the twentieth century, Africans were viewed as “the Other”. Essentially that they were foreign and inferior to the white race. The idea of “us” vs. “them” was prominent during this time. As the supposedly superior race, whites needed to make sure they were kept completely separate from blacks so as to avoid “contamination” and to be perceived as polar opposites.
The French used black soldiers in their occupation of Germany after World War I as a “subtle kind of psychological warfare”(Campt 32), much to the dismay of the Germans. Allegedly, Africans were especially suited for warfare given their “robustness, endurance…[and] an incomparable power to shock their enemies” (Campt 33). Another fear of black troops in Germany was over their “alleged sexual misconduct” (Campt 36). Interracial marriage and/or mixed race offspring were perceived as huge threats to Europe in the twentieth century.
Studies in areas such as eugenics and phrenology supported the notion that blacks were inferior to whites and that mixing the two races “had an impact on both the intellectual capacity and psychological constitution” and would result “in the ‘pauperization’ of the genetic traits of the ‘superior’ white race (Campt 39). The fears over intermarriage and consequently a mixed race population often led the state to ban whites and blacks marrying each other.
Africans were portrayed as the “racially inferior ‘Black enemy’” (Campt 57) in addition to being supposedly dangerous. Thus laws were put in place to restrict the rights and the entrance of Africans in some Europeans countries. Great Britain enacted legislature such as the Special Restrict of Coloured Alien Seamen Order in 1925; “directed solely against coloured migrants…it was clearly racist (Bush 207).
The threat of mixed race children was thought to be eliminated through the banning of interracial marriage and sex, but such was not the case. Taking the issue even further was the physical implementation of eugenics. A woman accused of being a nymphomaniac would be relieved of her ailments by removing her ovaries or uterus; upon its removal, a man with an enlarged prostate would no longer experience the “uncontrollable sexual desire” to attack young girls (Stone 96). Some of these procedures were forced upon blacks to further lessen the threat of mixed race offspring.
The idea that whites were a superior race was not a short-lived one and, unfortunately, they often went to extremes to prove their point. The ‘otherness’ of black culture was accentuated by the differences, even exaggerated or completely imagined, between blacks and whites. Blacks were considered to be fearful, barbaric, uncivilized,etc. and white Europeans supported the myth with their supposedly scientific research.
The French used black soldiers in their occupation of Germany after World War I as a “subtle kind of psychological warfare”(Campt 32), much to the dismay of the Germans. Allegedly, Africans were especially suited for warfare given their “robustness, endurance…[and] an incomparable power to shock their enemies” (Campt 33). Another fear of black troops in Germany was over their “alleged sexual misconduct” (Campt 36). Interracial marriage and/or mixed race offspring were perceived as huge threats to Europe in the twentieth century.
Studies in areas such as eugenics and phrenology supported the notion that blacks were inferior to whites and that mixing the two races “had an impact on both the intellectual capacity and psychological constitution” and would result “in the ‘pauperization’ of the genetic traits of the ‘superior’ white race (Campt 39). The fears over intermarriage and consequently a mixed race population often led the state to ban whites and blacks marrying each other.
Africans were portrayed as the “racially inferior ‘Black enemy’” (Campt 57) in addition to being supposedly dangerous. Thus laws were put in place to restrict the rights and the entrance of Africans in some Europeans countries. Great Britain enacted legislature such as the Special Restrict of Coloured Alien Seamen Order in 1925; “directed solely against coloured migrants…it was clearly racist (Bush 207).
The threat of mixed race children was thought to be eliminated through the banning of interracial marriage and sex, but such was not the case. Taking the issue even further was the physical implementation of eugenics. A woman accused of being a nymphomaniac would be relieved of her ailments by removing her ovaries or uterus; upon its removal, a man with an enlarged prostate would no longer experience the “uncontrollable sexual desire” to attack young girls (Stone 96). Some of these procedures were forced upon blacks to further lessen the threat of mixed race offspring.
The idea that whites were a superior race was not a short-lived one and, unfortunately, they often went to extremes to prove their point. The ‘otherness’ of black culture was accentuated by the differences, even exaggerated or completely imagined, between blacks and whites. Blacks were considered to be fearful, barbaric, uncivilized,etc. and white Europeans supported the myth with their supposedly scientific research.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Short Essay 5
I think that European imperialism in Africa was not spontaneous but essentially planned. I agree with Roberts, that Europe “tried to mould [sic] Africa for imperial purposes” and raced to beat other nations in order to gain the most territory on the continent(Roberts 24). Ultimately, what Europeans saw in Africa was the potential for political influence, trade, and labor.
It had been long assumed that blacks were inferior to whites based upon supposed “scientific research” and Africans were thought to be godless heathens and not capable of reaching the same levels of intelligence as whites. They allegedly were not sophisticated enough to rule themselves either, so nations such as France and Britain established governments in their territories thus making the Africans there French or British subjects.
Before it was tainted by European powers, Africa was overflowing with natural resources. But Europe saw more than just mining and trading opportunities, they saw human labor. When more manpower was needed for military campaigns, Africans were used. France used mostly Africans as its infantry because the French were not acclimated to the heat and humidity and often got sick (Vandervort 117). Even as late as World War I France used Africans to supplement its troops.
If Britain had not taken the land, then certainly France or Germany would have(and vice versa) and then Britain would have looked weak or had less influence in politics or trade in Africa. So whether any of these European powers thought it morally wrong to do so, it did not matter because in the end it was all about having more power in the eyes of their rivals.
It had been long assumed that blacks were inferior to whites based upon supposed “scientific research” and Africans were thought to be godless heathens and not capable of reaching the same levels of intelligence as whites. They allegedly were not sophisticated enough to rule themselves either, so nations such as France and Britain established governments in their territories thus making the Africans there French or British subjects.
Before it was tainted by European powers, Africa was overflowing with natural resources. But Europe saw more than just mining and trading opportunities, they saw human labor. When more manpower was needed for military campaigns, Africans were used. France used mostly Africans as its infantry because the French were not acclimated to the heat and humidity and often got sick (Vandervort 117). Even as late as World War I France used Africans to supplement its troops.
If Britain had not taken the land, then certainly France or Germany would have(and vice versa) and then Britain would have looked weak or had less influence in politics or trade in Africa. So whether any of these European powers thought it morally wrong to do so, it did not matter because in the end it was all about having more power in the eyes of their rivals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)