This chapter introduces E. D. Morel, who finally puts a dent into Leopold's ghostly armor. Morel worked for a shipping company that Leopold used. When he discovered the atrocities that were committed in order to get the goods that his company was shipping, he found the urge to publicize them. Assuming Leopold had a lot of shipping, Morel was asked to keep quiet more than a few times; offered bribes and really nice jobs in different areas. Morel wasn't wealthy, nor could he just quit his job and attempt to use his journalism full time.
But he did, and he developed his own publication, West African Mail, which had specific sections devoted to exposing the atrocities in the Congo. Originally, he used pen names, but he rose to become the most outspoken critic of Leopold's exploits. This is where he differed from other critics; he had a fanbase. People came to him with stories and information, even people who were supposed to be on Leopold's side. This was especially notable when the letters for the missionaries, who had their own mail service that was not censored by Leopold's men, because their letters were the most horrifying. Morel so far is the most successful guy in doing publicity damage to Leopold, because he got the situation onto the minds of members of Parliament.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Response to "Seriously Screwed Up"
In the grand scheme of things, this book has brought to light the "people" side of exploration. It's the PEOPLE. Why does this happen to innocent PEOPLE? Why did certain PEOPLE come into contact with the new surroundings first? Why didn't other people step in and stop them? Why did it take so long? Why do these exploitations happen?
I think it's sort of simple. Most people, like you, or me, or Jeff over there, or Joe (the plumber), are "normal." We are fine with our surroundings. We don't have any horrible mental scarring from a violent childhood. We don't have undiagnosed autism. We don't have a lust to find a new place. Sure, some of us want to "get out of Napa" because Napa is so boring, but we want to stay within the confines of a place that we know exists. WE don't know the feeling of knowing that there is a place out there that has never been photographed, that no video footage has captured; a place that is completely new. "Well, Eric, I have never been to Spain, or Russia..." Yeah, I know that, but OTHER PEOPLE HAVE. We have photos and documented evidence of those places. With Africa and the Americas "we" did not. In fact, no one did.
Imagine, for a moment, that Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, and that other guy ( face it, you don't know his name either) went to the moon. That's pretty intense, right? A whole new place.
Now, imagine if they had not been able to take pictures.
We would not have any images in our minds when we thought of the moon. We would just have imagined pictures, based on descriptions, but not the real thing. And deep down, we would all feel the lust to want to see that place for ourselves.
So, now that we know what type of "lust" these "explorers" had, what was the defining factor that led to exploitation?
These "people" were not normal. Take Cortez; sent out to study and develop a career at 14 years old. As a seasoned 16 year old, he returns to his home and is disappointed with the low level of life his family has had. He turns this want for more into fuel that drives him into the New World, and riches are on his mind; not the animals that inhabited Mexico that he either fought or converted to Christianity.
Pizzaro was another guy who grew up incredibly poor. In fact, this guy grew up illiterate. What more motivation could one need to exploit an entire world, that isn't really ever seen by the general public. There aren't really repercussions of anyone's actions in a "new place," initially, that is.
Don't even get me started on how not normal Ponce de Leon was; Fountain of Youth? Really?
Take Henry Morton Stanley. He was not normal. This guy had a troubled childhood and a habit of over-exaggerating things. He needed to please his peers. He did what he needed to do; what he could justify as "right" in his mind. That's what a lot of these guys were able to do, and it ended pretty similarly.
So, I guess what I'm saying, is that the PEOPLE who tend to gravitate towards "new place" situations are not "normal," and exploit the indigenous (I can't believe I just used that word to describe humans) because of their abnormalities, and the reason we have trouble coping with this today is because we can't really get a hold of what the feeling was like back then to be in a place no one had been before (at least no one that matters), and that no one would be able to get to.
So, yes, this has changed my thinking of these situations slight bit.
I think it's sort of simple. Most people, like you, or me, or Jeff over there, or Joe (the plumber), are "normal." We are fine with our surroundings. We don't have any horrible mental scarring from a violent childhood. We don't have undiagnosed autism. We don't have a lust to find a new place. Sure, some of us want to "get out of Napa" because Napa is so boring, but we want to stay within the confines of a place that we know exists. WE don't know the feeling of knowing that there is a place out there that has never been photographed, that no video footage has captured; a place that is completely new. "Well, Eric, I have never been to Spain, or Russia..." Yeah, I know that, but OTHER PEOPLE HAVE. We have photos and documented evidence of those places. With Africa and the Americas "we" did not. In fact, no one did.
Imagine, for a moment, that Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, and that other guy ( face it, you don't know his name either) went to the moon. That's pretty intense, right? A whole new place.
Now, imagine if they had not been able to take pictures.
We would not have any images in our minds when we thought of the moon. We would just have imagined pictures, based on descriptions, but not the real thing. And deep down, we would all feel the lust to want to see that place for ourselves.
So, now that we know what type of "lust" these "explorers" had, what was the defining factor that led to exploitation?
These "people" were not normal. Take Cortez; sent out to study and develop a career at 14 years old. As a seasoned 16 year old, he returns to his home and is disappointed with the low level of life his family has had. He turns this want for more into fuel that drives him into the New World, and riches are on his mind; not the animals that inhabited Mexico that he either fought or converted to Christianity.
Pizzaro was another guy who grew up incredibly poor. In fact, this guy grew up illiterate. What more motivation could one need to exploit an entire world, that isn't really ever seen by the general public. There aren't really repercussions of anyone's actions in a "new place," initially, that is.
Don't even get me started on how not normal Ponce de Leon was; Fountain of Youth? Really?
Take Henry Morton Stanley. He was not normal. This guy had a troubled childhood and a habit of over-exaggerating things. He needed to please his peers. He did what he needed to do; what he could justify as "right" in his mind. That's what a lot of these guys were able to do, and it ended pretty similarly.
So, I guess what I'm saying, is that the PEOPLE who tend to gravitate towards "new place" situations are not "normal," and exploit the indigenous (I can't believe I just used that word to describe humans) because of their abnormalities, and the reason we have trouble coping with this today is because we can't really get a hold of what the feeling was like back then to be in a place no one had been before (at least no one that matters), and that no one would be able to get to.
So, yes, this has changed my thinking of these situations slight bit.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Question #3 Response
The average European liked riches and getting wealthy. With any new land, there are always people who will believe that the new land will have untold riches. This land also was a place to gather people to sell for use in the western world at the time. The "riches" could have been items like gold or salt, and were sold to many other nations throughout the world to expand Europe's dominance at the time. This type of thing tends to happen whenever a "new land" is discovered, think about what happened to America when people found out it was prosperous. At a certain point, the map of Africa had enormous blank spots where Europeans had not visited, and many explorers were challenged to put on (sometimes fatal) expeditions.
When Europeans found African states, their morality in matters descended because of the slave trade. They easily destroyed kingdoms and states that had been set up, purely because the Europeans needed bodies for the slave trade. I guess the main thing would be that the Europeans didn't exactly think of the Africans as human beings (at least on the same level they thought themselves to be), and so they were able to get by with treating them poorly.
When Europeans found African states, their morality in matters descended because of the slave trade. They easily destroyed kingdoms and states that had been set up, purely because the Europeans needed bodies for the slave trade. I guess the main thing would be that the Europeans didn't exactly think of the Africans as human beings (at least on the same level they thought themselves to be), and so they were able to get by with treating them poorly.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Post Mortem Senior Project
I really couldn't be happier with the "project" in my senior project. Although I did have to create a completely new cycling club that was universal and accepted all high school students...And raise $20,000....and figure out all of the liability issues (which neither the NCOE or NVUSD want a part of), I was able to do so really quickly, because I already had a good knowledge of what exactly I needed to do, and how to do it. All I needed was enough time to attract attention from the Eagle Cycling Club and BAM-there is now a universal high school club supported with bikes and equipment by the most prominent cycling club in Napa Valley. My paper was kind of boring though, but here it is.
Questions About Research Paper
1. My topic is knee health in cyclists of all ages, and how cycling effects the knee over time during exercise. The issue I'm covering is whether cycling is beneficial or detrimental to the knee over time.
2. The most useful thing I have come across is an article on common knee injuries in cyclists. Because if I use this article as a base, I can use the injuries mentioned as tangent lines that allow me to analyze where in a cyclist's life the injuries happen, why they happen, and how they can be prevented.
3. My stance on the topic right now is that cycling can be beneficial to knee health, but only if the rider trains smartly and has a correct bike fit. With a good fit and a good training plan, it seems from my experience that guys can race and ride for a really long time.
4. What I envision doing in this article is presenting the premise that cycling affects knee health, and then ask the question of whether over time it is beneficial to the rider. I will spend a few pages presenting the general topics on knee health, and common injuries, and then spend the next pages after that talking about the benefits of cycling. I will tie up my paper by comparing the possible injuries and benefits, and then probably make a statement similar to my stance in #3. One part of my paper explains gearing to the reader. Gearing on a bike is difficult to explain to someone in person. Here we go.
On a bike, there is a "chainring" on the crank. The crank is the center part where the pedals attach. The chainring has a certain amount of teeth on it, and every time the pedals spin a full revolution the number of teeth on the ring is "pulled."
On the wheel, there are sprockets that have teeth on them as well, and they are connected to the chainring via the chain of the bike. Sprockets are little rings that are a lot smaller than chainrings, but still have teeth on them. The sprockets turn based on the amount of teeth pulled each revolution by the chainring in front.
For example, if the front chainring spins one revolution and has 50 teeth, the "pull" is 50 teeth. If the sprocket on the wheel has say, 30 teeth, the sprocket will turn one full revolution, and then another 2/3 of a revolution per turn of the pedals. Since the sprocket is connected to the wheel, the wheel moves at the same rate, propelling the bike.
Likewise, if the sprocket on the wheel has 10 teeth, the wheel will turn 5 times for every revolution of the pedals, because the pedals "pull" 50 teeth, which is 5 times the amount of teeth on the sprocket. And because the sprocket moves 5 times around per revolution of the pedals, the wheel does as well. The more revolutions a wheel does for every pedal stroke, the harder it is to pedal, and the faster the bike moves.
5. Something new? I have to say the actual reason behind making the gears juniors use easier was very interesting. I had a feeling it was for knee health, but I did not realize it was actually to make them faster when they are older.
2. The most useful thing I have come across is an article on common knee injuries in cyclists. Because if I use this article as a base, I can use the injuries mentioned as tangent lines that allow me to analyze where in a cyclist's life the injuries happen, why they happen, and how they can be prevented.
3. My stance on the topic right now is that cycling can be beneficial to knee health, but only if the rider trains smartly and has a correct bike fit. With a good fit and a good training plan, it seems from my experience that guys can race and ride for a really long time.
4. What I envision doing in this article is presenting the premise that cycling affects knee health, and then ask the question of whether over time it is beneficial to the rider. I will spend a few pages presenting the general topics on knee health, and common injuries, and then spend the next pages after that talking about the benefits of cycling. I will tie up my paper by comparing the possible injuries and benefits, and then probably make a statement similar to my stance in #3. One part of my paper explains gearing to the reader. Gearing on a bike is difficult to explain to someone in person. Here we go.
On a bike, there is a "chainring" on the crank. The crank is the center part where the pedals attach. The chainring has a certain amount of teeth on it, and every time the pedals spin a full revolution the number of teeth on the ring is "pulled."
On the wheel, there are sprockets that have teeth on them as well, and they are connected to the chainring via the chain of the bike. Sprockets are little rings that are a lot smaller than chainrings, but still have teeth on them. The sprockets turn based on the amount of teeth pulled each revolution by the chainring in front.
For example, if the front chainring spins one revolution and has 50 teeth, the "pull" is 50 teeth. If the sprocket on the wheel has say, 30 teeth, the sprocket will turn one full revolution, and then another 2/3 of a revolution per turn of the pedals. Since the sprocket is connected to the wheel, the wheel moves at the same rate, propelling the bike.
Likewise, if the sprocket on the wheel has 10 teeth, the wheel will turn 5 times for every revolution of the pedals, because the pedals "pull" 50 teeth, which is 5 times the amount of teeth on the sprocket. And because the sprocket moves 5 times around per revolution of the pedals, the wheel does as well. The more revolutions a wheel does for every pedal stroke, the harder it is to pedal, and the faster the bike moves.
5. Something new? I have to say the actual reason behind making the gears juniors use easier was very interesting. I had a feeling it was for knee health, but I did not realize it was actually to make them faster when they are older.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)