Are cyclists Nietzsche's Supermen?

passout

teagar wrote:

passout wrote:

[ Congo:If you are interested in the Congo read 'Blood River', it's an inpsired Travelogue and covers much of this. Did you know that the first man down the Congo was Stanley (the guy who also found Dr Livingstone) - a Daily Telegrapgh hack.

You mean the first European I presume. Africans are people too? Or do they not count? Or have you been reading too much of Stanley, who will happily shoot a man in his caravan if he drops anything of Stanley's in the river? Not that he ever considers the local people as equal as men. :roll:

No, the first man regardless of race....do your homework.
Thanks for the lecture by the way! :?

teagar

That's just factually wrong. Just because no-one writes it (after all, written history has been very much a European thing), doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Stanley's a key figure in my final year history course. You'd be laughed out of the room for even suggesting what you just put!

passout

Just editied my last post before i saw your response - sorry about that.

History is written - how else can it be a 'written history'!

Think about a tribal society with no incentive to explore the course of the river - why would an African want to do it? There is nothing to suggest that it had been explored before - except maybe by Arabic Slavers.

And anyway I'm not in your history class!

passout

PS Which books have you been reading on the Congo? Tim Butcher is one of the few people (again regardless of race) to travel the full length of the Congo in recent years. His award winning and historically accurate book is actually quite anti-Stanley. I'd say its more reliable overview (since he has been there) than most contemporary sources.

teagar

passout wrote:

Just editied my last post before i saw your response - sorry about that.

History is written - how else can it be a 'written history'!

Think about a tribal society with no incentive to explore the course of the river - why would an African want to do it? There is nothing to suggest that it had been explored before - except maybe by Arabic Slavers.

And anyway I'm not in your history class!

"Why would an African want to [explore a river]?" !!!!



And you think that isn't rascist? C'mon...

What incentive would a European have to explore a river which an African wouldn't? They are both human, they are both intelligent. The only difference between the two is cultural.

Just because Western explorers describe African societies as "tribal" and "primitive", "savage" and "evil" doesn't mean they are as such. Coloumbus also said that the locals to Southern and Central America had one eye in the middle of their forehead.

Africans and their societies ARE NOT inferior, and never have been.

Of course the local societies explored the area. Why wouldn't they?

Stanley's caravan consisted of around 30-100 people, almost all of which were local people. Indeed, Stanley got around the river by using their information. He used local guides in order to make his way around.

Our class has been doing some original work on Stanley with our professor, deconstructing all the texts he wrote, and putting them into a colonial context.

Just because a popular historian ( Butcher is actually a journalist...) takes an anti-Stanely stance doesn't somehow legitimise his work. His assumptions on local Africans and the natural superiority of Westerners are fundamental flaws in his book.

passout

You clearly haven't read his book as he makes no such assumptions - you seen determined to accuse Tim Butcher and I of been racists for some reason. I'm not going to overreact but I can't say I like it. I certainly haven't suggested that African society or indeed Africans are inferior as you suggest, I suggest you re-read my earlier posts.

The facts are that there was no incentive for a tribesman to pilot the full course of the river. And I'n not talking about raicial or socio-cultural differences here - it's pure economics. The reason Stanley and other white men took such risk was partly for Queen & country but more often for personal gain. And yes the took lots of Africans with them and relied on them, as ever in these cases - that is not in question and IS a fact. His exporations and actions gave Stanley reputation & social standing which he otherwise lacked in society. Furthermore he made piles of cash through his writings and celebrity. His explorations 'made him' socially and in terms of finance. It was worth the risk! At the same time tribespeople used the river as a sustainable resource and mode of transport but there was no particular resource that needed to be carried from one end of the river to the other. Food could always be sourced more locally than that - remember we are talking big distances here. Also the Congo was not a 'country' but a collection of tribal areas. Leaving your own tribal area and travelling great distances was risky & an intelligent person would not do so for no reason. The most valuable resource (in monetary terms) in this area at the time were slaves which is why the Arab slavers pushed Westwards from the East coast - again they had a financial incentive. The Arabs came into conflict with the Europeans, like Stanley, who wanted to open up Africa for the Empire. No sane person would attempt such a thing unless the rewards were great; so it seems unlikely that an African travelled the length of the river before Stanley. Also you have made no reference to any historical agrument that this is incorrect. No serious historian would argue that Africans were doing such a thing - no motive/incentive, great risk, no political reason to do so, no oral tradition suggesting that this is the case and no historic evidence.

You seem to think it did happen because African tribes people are just like us and 'well why wouldn't they?' Well, there are lots of reasons if you bothered to think about it.

And by the way I am a trained historian and archaeologist - I already have my degrees (yes more than one). Also I have spent time in Africa. I'll leave you to 'de - construct Stanleys text in colonial context', rather than actually read up on the Congo. Good luck with it.

teagar

passout wrote:

You clearly haven't read his book as he makes no such assumptions - you seen determined to accuse Tim Butcher and I of been racists for some reason. I'm not going to overreact but I can't say I like it. I certainly haven't suggested that African society or indeed Africans are inferior as you suggest, I suggest you re-read my earlier posts.

The facts are that there was no incentive for a tribesman to pilot the full course of the river. And I'n not talking about raicial or socio-cultural differences here - it's pure economics. The reason Stanley and other white men took such risk was partly for Queen & country but more often for personal gain. And yes the took lots of Africans with them and relied on them, as ever in these cases - that is not in question and IS a fact. His exporations and actions gave Stanley reputation & social standing which he otherwise lacked in society. Furthermore he made piles of cash through his writings and celebrity. His explorations 'made him' socially and in terms of finance. It was worth the risk! At the same time tribespeople used the river as a sustainable resource and mode of transport but there was no particular resource that needed to be carried from one end of the river to the other. Food could always be sourced more locally than that - remember we are talking big distances here. Also the Congo was not a 'country' but a collection of tribal areas. Leaving your own tribal area and travelling great distances was risky & an intelligent person would not do so for no reason. The most valuable resource (in monetary terms) in this area at the time were slaves which is why the Arab slavers pushed Westwards from the East coast - again they had a financial incentive. The Arabs came into conflict with the Europeans, like Stanley, who wanted to open up Africa for the Empire. No sane person would attempt such a thing unless the rewards were great; so it seems unlikely that an African travelled the length of the river before Stanley. Also you have made no reference to any historical agrument that this is incorrect. No serious historian would argue that Africans were doing such a thing - no motive/incentive, great risk, no political reason to do so, no oral tradition suggesting that this is the case and no historic evidence.

You seem to think it did happen because African tribes people are just like us and 'well why wouldn't they?' Well, there are lots of reasons if you bothered to think about it.

And by the way I am a trained historian and archaeologist - I already have my degrees (yes more than one). Also I have spent time in Africa. I'll leave you to 'de - construct Stanleys text in colonial context', rather than actually read up on the Congo. Good luck with it.

Firstly, I would like to make it clear that it I have not made a "moral" judgement. I mean racism in the very literal sense - a discrimination on the basis of race. No more. No less.

By even calling African societies as "tribal" is already very contentious. It nowadays is considered in colonial history to be too derrogatory and too laced with imperialism. Look at Robert C Young's work to explore that further.


I certainly agree that Stanely went into Africa for his own personal gain. That much is made more than clear in his own work. What he actually did in the Congo is slightly more debateable, given that he is the only source on his own exploration. Certainly a close reading of his texts suggests that many of the stories he writes are extremely unlikely to have happened.

I have no opposing historical argument as such because I am challenging the assumptions on which your analysis of this encounter rests upon. Surely as a "trained" historian, nothing I claim to be, you should welcome such challenges?


As for the local people having no reason to ascend the river points to your assumption that these societies are somehow less developed - their only nees are basic needs such as food. This I would argue is quite wrong too. The Ivory trade was established, even in the area later considered the Congo. I'm sure your reading on the Congo will have informed you of that, if we are going to take your line of argument on that.

Secondly - how would the locals know that there was nothing further up the river to trade?...

All these questions are moot though. I still feel the need to quesiton your assumptiosn. I ask you, why would Stanley achieve fame, wealth and recognition for exploration? Because people were interested in exploration. Why wouldn't the local Africans have a similar view to exploration? You seem to assume that the local Africans are somehow more "primtive" than the Europeans.

That you say youself that Stanley's and other explorers' Caravan was made up largely of locals completely illustrates my point. The exploreres used the local knowledge of the area to make their exploration. These areas thus had to have been explorered before, or else the locals would not have been able to guide the explorers.

If you read "How I met Dr. Livingstone" closely, you will see that Stanely hears of Livingstone's whereabouts from a local. He does not "find" him. The locals have, and he uses their information.

That peopl even lived all the way down the river suggests that people had been down there. Stanley can't have been the first person there (along with his caravan) if he meets people at the other end?

I am saying all of this to try and demonstrate that the assumptions on which you base your argument are not necessarily sound, and, in a non-judgmental literal sene, are racsist. That does NOT make YOU or Butcher racist. It makes the assumptions which you are used to, and the way in which you have been conditioned to think as rascist.

As for suggesting I have not read about the Congo, I feel the need to justify myself. I have just finished writing my dissertation on Harry Johnston's "George Grenfell and the Congo", a early 20th Century encyclopaedia of the Congo.

I have also read: The Congo from Leopold to Kabila : a people's history / Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja.
Imagining the Congo : the international relations of identity / Kevin C. Dunn.

In the footsteps of Mr Kurtz : living on the brink of disaster in the Congo / Michela Wrong.

The King incorporated : Leopold the Second and the Congo / Neal Ascherson

King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror and Heroism/ Adam Hochschild.

As well as attending all my seminars on it, where I get given plenty of information from my professor.


Again all these books largely challenge the assumptions and language that you use in your analysis rather than any specific analysis on the Congo exploration per say.

"imagining the Congo: the international relations of identity" is particulaly good on that.

passout

Good - I'm glad that you have been doing your reading, as it does add validity to your views. African society at the time was clearly tribal though, this is not a slur rather an accurate description of the social structure of that part of Africa. Clearly the word tribal does cover a wide range of socieites - but so does the Congo! Ivory is an interesting point but we are talking about contact with European or Arabic cultures in order to ascribe any monetary value to that particular commodity. Also I see no reason why it would have to be dragged that far down the river, as ivory too was widespread across Africa - especially in East Africa of course.

You ask why wouldn't local Africans have a similiar view to exploration? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that they didn't explore as Stanley did. This seems to be the same with most tribal socities - they explore/migrate only when they have good reason such as over population. Indeed this was the motive for the Vikings to set sail. Just to clarify I'm talking about Africans who had not been exposed to European ways / oppresion / exploitation. The whole notion of exploration in the sense of a pioneer with a manifest destiny is clearly a European and later North American idea. The Arabs covered the world to seek out new trade links and there were various Asian Empires but it is not the same thing. Euro (especially British) explorers paved the way for colonialists and had a moral and religious justification which was pretty unique. Also Britian was the first industrialised society and was the first country to need an Empire to supply commodities and buy British goods. Any Tribal society that survives is/must be sustainable but doesn't need to grow as the industrialised Capitalist West does/did - through exlpoiting other countries and the working class domestically (see Marx). Also few socities at the time had the resources to send explorers as far away from home as Stanley managed to get.

When you mention 'people at the other end' - have you looked on map? Do you mean more to the East - Rwanda/Uganda or the Western coast? You must rememeber that we are talking about crossing a HUGE continent here. Clearly there were already lots of blacks & whites at each end, they came from the coast in. The point is that Stanley really was the first man to follow the course of the Congo. He was the first man with any real incentive to do so.

As for 'my assumptions' - that's the thing that annoys me. You don't know what my assumptions are. I have looked into how colonialism is reflected in film for instance & approach academia as a Constructionist. I'm pretty aware of my own views and prejudices and they certainly don't match what you are saying. My personal view on the man (I haven't given it yet despite your assumption that I have) is that he was a brave, determined and resourceful risk taker. He was also a racist, murdering, mad man who was a key player in the European expansion into Africa. He was a man of his time - which I guess is the point of your assignment.

I think that you need to stop focussing on 'we are all equal' arguments and instead focus on the fact that motivation is tied into some sort of incentive. This works across all socities but in very different forms. Anthroplogists from Leech onwards have said this, so have Economists - see Levitt for instance. Stanley did not do his thing because he was racist colonailist and Africans didn't harbour European ideas of exploration /exploitation beacuse they were in any way inferior (quite the opposite in my view). What controls peoples behaviour is society/culture but also economics. In these two fundamental ways the Africans and Europeans of this period WERE very different. And yes Europe was clearly economically much more advanced than Africa - how else would they have been able to expoit! I thought that was obvious. You on the other hand are talking about African culture and society which not at the root cause of what happened there - it was incidental. I certainly don't think that the various cultures of the Congo were in any way inferior or less valid than those in Europe - not that I have mentioned them up 'till now.

By the way if you are doing a history degree then you are a trained historian - what other form of training is there really?

chuckcork

Looks like another thesis is taking place using the forum?

teagar

That you are a structuralist historian probably explains our differences. My specialist course is a post-structuralist course. The course specifically looks at European encounters with Africa (rather than African encounters with Europeans), so our focus is on the dominators. We are taught to examine and critique the prevailing identities of the time, and see how they allow processes such as colonialism and other forms of domination, like gender, to exist, conceptually. The argument follows that once colonialism is conceptualised, the reality of colonialism, e.g. the British Empire, can occur.

That's why I object to the use of the word "tribal", which carries too many imperialist notions. The argument goes that the notion of "tribal" was used to create a distinction between Europeans and Africans, where one was advanced, developed, civilised etc, and the other was the opposite; savage, uncivilised, primitive, tribal. Thus, their (the African) domination, because they are all of the above, can conceptually occur.

As to the notion that European societies are more advanced than local African societies. That concept of progress and advancement in and of itself was a concept that emerged when Europeans began to encounter non-Europeans (to use our own definitions). By understanding the notion of being "advanced", on their own terms, the Europeans would create a distinction akin to the one described above: those who are advanced, and those who arn't. It's probably not surprising that the criteria by which being "advanced" or "civilised" always puts Europe (now the West...) a the top: Economic prosperity, technology, citizenship etc. In some Islamic cultures, for example, the world is known more in terms of Islam. Those who are bought up and conditioned by that culture see places like the West as less good places than their own, since their understanding of the world and their criteria are different.

The identity given conditions the interraction that occurs.

The argument follows that the "knowledge" of something is therefore always subjective and political. Europe (or the West more generally) understood the world in its own terms in a way which allowed (allows?) their domination of others to occur. They had the technological advantage to do so.

Thus, my argument follows that the histories of colonialism (mainly Europeans) must endevour to understand these ways of conceptualising colonailism, and those involved.
A similar argument then can be constructed about written history, mentioned earlier.

There are, as you put it, "oral traditions" in African societies. This is effectivley just oral history. Yet, because it is not history in the way the west understands it, i.e. written, it is discarded by the westerner as something that isn't history. It's a tradition instead.

So when we discuss Stanley, we need to be aware that we may "know" the world in a way that justifies European colonialism, like Stanely and (from what you've said!), Butcher does too.

In his book, "How I Met Dr. Livingstone", as you have probably worked out yourself, he presents himself very much as a superman, fighting against all the evils that exist in the "heart of darkness". Like you said this is largely due to him wanting the fame and fortune of exploration, and I tend to agree. What surprises me though, is that while some historians take that as a given, because he is the only source on the event, they don't take this to call the legitimacy of the record into account? Some of the things he says just plainly did not, and will not ever, happen.

As for his actual exploration of the river - I would suggest that he probably didn't go down all of it. It's not for nothing he made sure he was the only person allowed to write what he actually did. Surely at least one corroborating story would give him legitmacy? He was largley ridiculed when he got back to the Royal Geographical Society, who took his "Dr.Livingstone I presume?" to be a big joke.

passout

Yes, I've spent far too much time on this - I'm off.