Colonization in Africa and Some Seriously Screwed Up People

Not to sound conceited, but reading King Leopold's Ghost hasn't significantly changed my point of view on colonial enterprises.  For quite a few years now, I have understood the seriousness of the atrocities committed by Western colonizers; however, Hochschild provided significantly more "evidence" of these horrors.

The psychological profile of many of these early explorers was especially interesting.  Despite the commonality of a troubled home life and often significant personal baggage, I still believe financial gains are the principal reason for the exploration and colonization of "uncharted" territories, like the Congo.  When you look at the individual explorer's personal lives, many were plagued by financial problems.  Exploring new potential colonies, like the Congo, gave them the opportunity to gain fame and fortune, or at least merely avoid their debts for a few years.

Furthermore, the potential for economic gain was the principle reason many, if not all, nations engaged in colonialism (despite the "philanthropic" ideals rulers like Leopold II of Belgium preached).  Even in the scramble for Africa, mercantilism was still a pervasive idea.  Like Leopold, sought colonies as an economic venture.  Not only could a colony provide a market for the dominant nation's goods, colonies like the Congo also provided nations with raw materials, precious metals and valuable commodities.

King Leopold's Ghost brings memories of current issues involving forced labor, human trafficking and unsafe working conditions.  As developing countries strive to compete with the "Western" world, these governments encourage the building of factories that can churn out products faster and cheaper than their competitors in already industrialized nations.  This leads to child labor, unsafe working conditions, brutality towards employees and environmental exploitation (i.e. for natural resources) and degradation.

Even though the age of colonialism is generally considered to be over, problems with inequality among nations reminiscent of colonialism remain pervasive.  Still, the industrialized nations continue to dominate "Third World" countries.  Although the current super powers lack official colonies, they continue to exploit developing countries in a very similar manner.

Why Do We Ignore Conquest and Brutality?

So why do we really ignore tragedy, genocide, general brutality and even manipulation when it occurs outside our own realm? Some will blame ignorance, but in reality, the issue is much more complex.


Although misinformation can be to blame, it is frequently not the true excuse. The United States has been called the "policeman of the world" in reference to our frequent intervention in foreign diplomatic issues for the sake of the common good. Teddy Roosevelt, who intervened in foreign affairs a number of times during his presidency, and his "Big Stick Diplomacy" was especially indicative of this role.  

Today, the US continues to intervene in other nation's affairs for the sake of freedom, democracy and the "common good." Nevertheless, this intervention is often self serving. Some will ask why the United States does not to more to help alleviate the current tragedy in the Congo or even the Rwanda genocide. Politicians blame misinformation, but in reality, US intervention often seems more tied to potential economic gains. The US often seems more giving of aid to oil-rich nations (take Kuwait in 1990 as just one example). It seems that a lack of intervention in these lesser-known areas of the world could be attributed to a lack of fiscal or political gain to be had.
Lack of media coverage, and therefore public knowledge, can also be to blame. Take the current war in the Congo for example. Although catastrophic and horrifying, it receives relatively little news coverage. The US took a similar bystander role in the Rwanda genocide of 1994.
A similar bystander effect can be seen in issues close to home as well. In World War II, many Germans complied with Nazi tyranny because of a "surely that could never happen to me" type attitude. Out of fear, many became Nazi supporters. These supporters chose to ignore atrocities in their own nation because they feared the repercussions if they spoke up and felt powerless to do so. A similar affect occurs today. Many politicians and citizens turn a blind eye to this brutality because they fear the consequences of speaking up or feel they are powerless.

(Written in response to question 5: Why don't people speak up sooner when they realize that mass brutality, manipulation, and subterfuge is going on in various of the less-well-know corners of the world?)

Senior Project Update and Research Paper Reflection

Overall, I think I wrote a good research paper from my Senior Project.  While my project is becoming SCUBA certified, I chose to write my research paper about environmental degradation in the oceans.  I am especially glad that I chose a research paper topic that was interesting to me instead of one that may have related more directly to my project but been boring to me.

I think the paper itself was good.  However, it was on the shorter end of the 5-6 page goal (it was exactly 5 full pages).  I think another way the paper could improve was with my source selection.  Unlike the research paper I am writing for my English class, I did not read a book to write the paper and some of my sources were not as academic as they could have been.  Given more time, I could always improve it, add more information etc.  Nevertheless, I still believe my Senior Project research paper is a strong representation of my work.

Research Paper Update

My research paper if focused on the current preponderance of standardized tests in the American education system.  Today, they are used at nearly every grade level to place students academically, determine federal funding for schools and even make admissions decisions (for both colleges and elementary and secondary schools).  Although their importance cannot be denied, my paper evaluates rather or not standardized testing is really helping our education system and students.

Thus far, the book I read, The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools by Alfie Kohn, has been and incredibly useful source.  It provides a clear and concise case against standardized testing and specifically outlines its negative consequences.  The book itself was displayed in a question-answer/rebuttal type format but the actually text was filled with essential facts and valuable insights.

Personally, I think standardized tests, although necessary to some degree, are used too widely in today's school system.  Aside from a standardized test at school (or perhaps if you were chosen as a contestant on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire), one will never encounter an environment like those tests.  Rarely (if ever) would someone have take a test or complete a task entirely alone, without collaboration or ability to look up a forgotten obscure fact, in a strictly time environment. The multiple choice format is especially useless.  In the real world, it is rare to only have to recognize a correct answer and not even generate it yourself.  Furthermore, the knowledge tested in these tests does not reward deep thought; instead working quickly and guessing well seem to lead to more standardized test success.

The norm-referenced test is an exceedingly common, yet often misunderstood aspect of the standardized testing world.  Scores from these test are not reported numerically or based on a percentage of questions answered correctly.  As the name implies, a "score" on this test is not a score at all but a percentage reflecting how the student performed relative to other test takers.  For example, scoring in the 90th percentile (90%) on a norm-referenced test indicated that the student's score was higher than 90% of the the other test-takers.  Likewise, a student scoring in the 10th percentile was outscored by 90% of his peers.  Although one of the primary goals of standardized tests is to compare students, these norm-referenced tests can also be incredibly damaging.  Even if students personally improve, their peer group often improves with them, meaning that students often maintain a similar percentile.  This can be especially harmful for low-scoring individuals, who may become discouraged with school as they begin to believe they are stupid.  Likewise, a high scoring student could become complacent.  Furthermore, the scores from these tests do not measure learning at all.  Because of the percentile scoring method, students could all do reflectively poorly on a test but someone would have to score in the 99th percentile and someone would be in the bottom 1% of test takers, even if the scores from all students were fairly similar.  Lastly, and perhaps most unfairly, norm-referenced tests are designed so that there is a separation between students' scores.  This means that they are not testing the material that is most important.  Instead, difficult questions are specifically designed so students who score well on the test generally will answer them correctly.  This design often favors wealthier students as material and knowledge gained outside of class is often placed on the test as a way of differentiating students.

I was especially surprised to hear about a ridiculous reading comprehension featured on a New York state standardized test.  The question involved a fable (a clear adaption of the Tortoise and the Hare) in which a pineapple challenges a hare to a race. (Here is a link to an article featured in the New York Daily News containing the full story and question set).  Here's a quick summary: all the animals in the forest bet that the pineapple will win, thinking it has "some trick up its sleeve." However, when the race begins, the pineapple does not move and the hare wins.  The forest animals proceed to eat the pineapple.  The moral of the story is stated as "pineapples don't have sleeves."  Students are then asked a series of perplexing and subjective questions, including why the animals ate the pineapple and which animal spoke the wisest words.  This case provides a clear point about the luck and guessing ability (as opposed to intelligence or critical thinking) measured by standardized tests.  Students who did not think too deeply and quickly guessed an answer for the perplexing questions were rewarded with more time to complete the rest of the test while students who thought more deeply about the confusing questions may have run out of time on the rest of the test, even if they knew the other answers.