What Were They Thinking? New Ideas From an Old Book

The first years of a new century tend to be rife with encomiums about recent progress and glowing or doomsaying prognostications for the future. The verbiage I just used reflects my recent skimming of a book with the modest title The American Home Educator and Book of Universal Knowledge. Published in 1904 as a sort of one-stop snapshot of the current world, it purported itself to be a 738 page summary of every important occurrence and development in all aspects of life on earth and beyond! The Wikipedia of its day.

I found this while scavenging for books for re-sale on clear-out day after the local library's annual fund-raiser. This gem was not even in the stacks – but tossed in a forlorn corner labeled “recycle.” Its cover features a Gibson-styled working class husband and wife at a table happily engaged in self-education, which of course would have been squeezed in after their 12 hr. workday.

In the pursuit of knowledge of history and the human condition, I have long sought an outlet for sharing ideas with others on the evolution of our culture and mindsets. We are being swept out of our depth by the speed of social, political, scientific, and economic changes in the world. By gleaning insights from our lost past, and finding patterns, I believe we can gain a longer-view perspective to better understand the present and our place and purpose in it.

In this blog I will start by introducing unedited sections of “...Universal Knowledge,” and ask you to comment under these topic headings:

1. ANYTHING UNEXPECTED HERE – THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE?
2. WHAT IS THE AUTHOR'S POINT OF VIEW? (HIS/HER VIEW OF THE WORLD)
3. WERE THE IDEAS RIGHT OR WRONG?
   (FROM HIS/HER PERSPECTIVE)
   (FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE)
4. THE RESULT OF THESE IDEAS IN TODAY'S WORLD
5. HOW DO YOU THINK YOUR OPINIONS HERE MIGHT BE INTERPRETED IN 2113?

The first topic I chose because of the chapter's paradoxical title. Read and respond, and I hope this goes viral.

The White Man's Greed for the Land of the Blacks – Civilization in Africa.

The scramble for land in Africa by the nations of Europe is of comparatively recent date. Earliest explorations were begun in 1553, and while the continent has held more of romance and danger for the explorer than possibly any other, it has been a hard task to colonize it. France and England, as in other things, have been constant rivals here, with England in the lead. Country after country has pushed into the interior at different points along the coast, and gained control of the native chiefs. Generally the partition went on gradually and peacefully (Note: peaceful among the conquerors!), and it was not till after the Brussels Conference in 1878 that the unrestrained scramble began that has since resulted in the division of the whole continent among the great powers. In 1876, while Great Britain, France, Spain and Portugal had located colonies on the coast, the interior was largely held by wild tribes, but since then the work of division has been so energetic, that in 1890, of the 11,900,000 square miles of territory on the continent, only some 1,500,000 remained open for further conquest. Conflicting claims have existed all along between the powers, and it was through these mainly that France had trouble with England at Fashoda, in which the latter country came out victorious, and which keeps England's army in the Soudan (sic). The recent trouble with the Boers in South Africa will very likely add to the possessions of Great Britain, while France is daily getting a stronger hold on Madagascar. The following is the area as controlled by the different powers, omitting such as has over it only a protectorate government: Great Britain, 2,250,000 square miles; France, 3,500,000; Germany, 890,000; Portugal, 900,000; Italy, 600,000; and Spain, 250,000. Besides these possessions there, the Congo Free State controls 850,000 square miles; Liberia, 37,000; the Boer republics, 162,640 and unappropriated territory, 1,500,000.

Comments

1. I have no knowledge of the Brussels Conference of 1878 and what it was about. Also, I learned very little about African colonization in school or college. I remember the independence movements of the 1950's and 60's that de-colonized Africa, but still know nothing about how it all came about and very little about what life was like for Africans under colonial rule or afterward. This is my own parochial American ignorance (see #3 below) and I think most in our country share it.
2. The author's point of view indicates that the peoples of Africa and their rights to sovereignty were not recognized in any way by the European powers and, in extension, by America. It was as though African nationals had no existence beyond being impediments to conquest of territory. There is no acknowledgment of anything but the (perceived) reality of partition, power, and which countries were ahead in the race. “Civilizing” Africa appeared to be the Manifest Destiny of Europe.
3. a. The underlying motivations of the conquest are not apparent in this short article. It seems that, like climbing Mt. Everest, Africa was an open hunting ground simply because it was there. Western norms were the only valid ones in the limited experience and consciousness of parochial Americans that neither knew of nor respected anything outside their own experience. From that perspective, and the missionary spirit that prevailed at the time (convert and civilize the heathen, give them Christian morals), it could have been perceived as not only right, but a duty.
   b. I view any exploitation of a country or forced change of a culture as immoral. But, in a way, I am also conflicted by my perceptions of what an open and just society should be, and many cultures in African nations support unjust policies towards individuals and sub-cultures. Though the “rule of law” is not practiced anywhere as it is preached, I still feel as morally driven to support initiatives for universal human rights as 19^th century churches felt compelled to set up foreign missions
4. Inexplicable chaos. That is, because of my ignorance – this is what it looks like to me.
5. A hundred years from now I fear we will be fully engaged in reaping what was sown in the power struggles of the past 100 years. Technology is already providing us with an open window on all parts of the world and, with any common sense at all, people will have broken from tribalism and conflict by the need to work together to steward the world's resources and reduce the harm already caused. I think they would look at my ignorance, but also at my available Internet resources and say, “How could she not know these things? It was all right there.”