Ok, well during discussion about the anti-conquest idea of Pratt's article and the gun slinging conquest style of the characters in The Lost World, I started thinking; what are some good examples of these ideas throughout history. All I could come up with were examples of the latter, as in Cortes and the the conquistadors, Columbus and his treatment of the natives, etc. I couldn't come up with any anti-conquest examples. What do you guys think classifies something as anti-conquest? And what examples throughout history would classify as an example of anti-conquest? Where do you draw the line between good and harsh treatment of natives of the colonized land?
PS: By the way, I'm sorry for such the short post. I'm terrible at writing these things...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is an interesting article about modern anti-conquest concerning the Himba women in Africa.
ReplyDeleteIt includes Pratt's definition of anti-conquest from "Imperial Eyes."
http://treesnevermeet.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/anti-conquests-in-africa/
The Himba are the "tiniest minority" of Nambia but they are widely popularized in Western magazines (like National Geographic) because they are always topless, a drastically different cultural norm. The author shows how journalists and tourists attempt to be the silent observer. But we have not faded into the background to become this "silent observer" because a Himba women now charges $20 for her picture to be taken as it is such a common occurrence.
So to be a little more clear, I think we should define anti-conquest. Anti-conquest is related to Pratt's title, "Imperial Eyes" because the term has more to do with the way you look at something; it is not "overtly imperial" as we said in class. It is looking at something and asserting European/Western values over what you see. (That's what I picked up at least. I'm sure there's more to the definition.)
ReplyDeleteSo in that case, most of US foreign policy (exerting soft power over most countries but not being overtly dominate-- being a unipolar power more than hegemon kind of thing) would be considered anti-conquest I guess.
Are there any examples of anti-conquest in the Lost World?
Or were their actions "overtly imperial" when it came to the plateau and its inhabitants?
I think other definitions of anti conquest could be those of scientists in general. Simply people seeking knowledge just so they have a better understanding of things. Take Newton for example, in all of his studies and experiments, I don't believe he was looking for imperial conquest; the same goes for the "great" scientists of long ago. However, as societies and the world in general have changed, the more imperialistic view behind discoveries in general has come into play. It's as if some people want to use knowledge as power rather than just for the sheer fact of having knowledge.
ReplyDeleteLike Heidi said, most of the US foreign policy is portrayed as anti-conquest because it's what Americans (or at least some) have come to "know" as what is "right"; also, like when the crusaders did their invading, it was based on sharing with others what they "knew was right." This goes to show the correlation between Pratt's title of "Imperial Eyes" It's all on how you look at things.
As far as examples of anti-conquest in the Lost World, I think that the explorers originally thought their adventure was just going to be one of discovery and one of finding evidence that could be used in Challenger's favor; however, their existence ended up ending an entire race (the ape men). I'm not really sure what this means, but it's an interesting point to think about.
Conquering the Ape-men is definitely an example of overt imperialism. The 4 protagonists were not just sitting and observing the newfound life on the plateau, they were sort of destroying it haha.
ReplyDeleteThinking about examples of anti-conquest in The Lost World is not easy. But the Alfred Russel Wallace essay, "On the variety of man in the Malay archipelago" was almost completely anti-conquest. He silently took note of the natives and constantly made Euro-centric assumptions about their behaviors. So maybe that is an easier direction to go in...
page 39 of "Narrating the anti-conquest"
ReplyDelete"...as I suggested above, a utopian, innocent vision of European global authority, which I refer to as an anti-conquest. The term is intended to emphasize the relational meaning of natural history, the extent to which it became meaningful specifically in contrast with an earlier imperial, and prebourgeois, European expansionist presence."
emphasis on innocent
What I gathered from the reading was that her definition of "Anti-Conquest" was a literal conquest by European powers, but under the guise of naturalism and science. So basically the imperialist country would sponsor/plant scientific expeditions/inquiries into desirable countries and say "Oh well we aren't REALLY conquering you, don't be silly! We're just gathering scientific facts." Kind of a cheap, safe, non-belligerent way to assert your power over a weaker nation with desirable natural resources, isn't it?
If this were the case I really can't think of any other examples of "anti-conquests" in the real world.
In Doyle's novel, I wouldn't regard the expedition to Maple White Land as an anti-conquest because they didn't intend to utilize the natural resources available on the plateau, or intend to straight up live there. So I wouldn't really say that any part of the exploration of Maple White Land is imperialism, peaceful or not. Yet. Also, as Heidi has said, the killing of the ape-men isn't exactly peaceable.
As far as U.S. foreign policy goes, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, well, I don't really know what to say. It's a very tricky situation, and very hard to categorize as an "anti-conquest" in the terms that the author has described, considering we tend to go in guns a-blazin'. The reasoning for the invasion of Afghanistan was pretty well justified, but as our presence there went on, the reasons for staying because convoluted, just like the reasons for invading Iraq in the first place. The point is that it's very hard to say what our short term and long term objectives in the middle east, and the world are. A lot of people call the U.S. imperialistic, some say we are there for the oil, some say we are there to promote democracy. Who knows anymore? I certainly don't. Just my opinion though.
I guess that goes back to Stephen's original question. Where do we draw the line as far as classifying what is and isn't "imperial"? I think it all depends on our backgrounds and what we've been exposed to first hand and by word of mouth because we all know how influential all of us (meaning Americans and humans in general) can be/are.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
ReplyDeleteImperialism, defined by The Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." Imperialism has been described as a primarily western concept that employs "expansionist – capitalist and latterly communist – systems."
Yes, I know that it's wikipedia. But this is cited, I promise! This might help us clarify things a little bit.
Like Ashley, I am confused about the word "imperial" too. To be honest, many Chinese think America is imperial. On the other hand, I guess American might think communism is imperial (I do not know since I am not American). The reason is probably that we all have different culture and history backgrounds. We do not really understand others, and we treat others as stereotypes.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I want to point out is selfishness, which is human nature. When a person or a country becomes really powerful, he definitely wants to show his power. Then how can he show the power? --Conquering!!!
I consider that "conquest" refers to power and "anti-conquest" refers to weak