In this post, I would like you to analyze one of the images from pages 960-967 of Strayer. Use the brain-storming exercise we practiced in class to discover the more hidden elements in the artwork. What do you think the elements of the artwork mean?
In addition, read someone's post that relates to the image you worked on and comment on their reflections. Be mindful of your thoughts: ask questions, make respectful challenges and maintain collegiality.
Best,
JMN
21 comments:
On page 962 many ideas can be interpreted. For example the flag of France waving in African territory means that the French have colonized that territory. The Africans on the picture seem to be fighting on the French side; this is another sign of colonization. The dead body on the picture under who seems to be the “leader” of the French is of an African person and the French are just moving on not caring about the African casualties. On the picture the Africans are carrying guns which means that the French gave the Africans guns and opportunity to fight for them instead of against them. This picture shows a clear example of how colonization happened.
The picture Conquest and Competition can be interpreted that the French and the African-Americans were each other’s allies’. There is a French flag waving in the air, so that gives me the impression that the French is at war, and wanted the Africans to be there. The French and African-Americans would have had to come to an agreement of some sort, so that they would fight with the French. There is a black man lying on the ground, dead, with a French man standing over him, giving his men directions pointing and yelling, it looks like to go forward and attack.
All of the men in the picture are looking forward, not paying attention to the French man yelling, except for one African man and a French man. The African man is looking at the French man with a face of anger and disgust. This could be because of multiple reasons, the man could have been forced to fight in this war, he could have been scared, or what the French man is telling them at the moment made him feel that way. The French man, who is taking orders with the others, is looking at the man with a face of astonishment. I think whatever it is that the man is giving orders for them to do, is something terrifying. Also the man in the front of the picture is holding a hand gun, unlike everyone else in the picture. This could be interpreted in the sense that he was in charge of things, so he did not have to fight, but just give orders.
When first looking at "A French Critique of the Boer War" I see two bitter looking men who would do just about anything to succeed in business. When you take a closer look everything becomes much more clear what the intended meaning was. I believe that this picture is portraying the British taking over Africa by force. If you look under one of the men’s feet there is a much more tribal looking man lying. If you look even closer, the man is cutting through part of the fabric behind the British men. This, in my opinion, symbolizes that there was a conflict in culture and ways of doing things. When the conflict became more distinct the British used violence to force their “civilized” beliefs on the Africans. The British men in the picture are much more civilized looking but also look a lot more threatening. The man who is being crushed into the ground has a much softer look and feel to him. He is fighting for his culture, his beliefs, and his life. The British men are fighting for their own benefit, to take advantage of the African people, and to wreak the benefits of their inflicted violence and cultural put downs. This tribal culture was lost because of the harsh violence of the British while colonizing Africa.
The picture Conquest and competition can be interpreted in many different ways. Although I believe that there are three things that best represent this picture and those are; conflict, integration, and representation. When a viewer first looks at this picture the first thing they would see is Michel Morphy leading not only the French but Africans into battle. When anyone is at war there is an obvious conflict. This conflict could be looked at from many different views. If it is viewed from the Africans alongside the French maybe they are in an unnecessary conflict that will not benefit them in any way. However if it is viewed from the French General’s point of view the conflict may be a necessary one, that could not only change his life but the lives of everyone within his country. In this picture along with conflict there is integration, although these people may have been forced to fight but they are still integrated with the French for better or worse. For the French having Africans fighting alongside may be crucial to determine whether they win or lose the battle due to what looks like lack of man power. The next thing that I see when I look at this picture is representation. Anytime there is a war, battle, or a game there is a representation of a country, state, or group. Within this particular picture the French are representing themselves in a battle by flying their colors and representing something more than themselves. This is important because this is how countries were formed and continue to develop.
To begin this assignment I looked at all of the images throughout my decision making process and was most intrigued by, “A French Critique of the Boer War.” The reason my eye was extraordinarily drawn to this image is because of the color and shapes of objects within the picture. For instance, it seemed odd to me that the entire background except for the British flag was painted in a blood like color. I understand this picture is based upon the Boer War; however, the way it is drawn is confusing. Eye patches become the most important figures in this image for my perspective. These men completely cover one of their eyes as if they don’t want to be seen in an act of murder. Along with the vital eye patches to symbolize Britain’s fighting techniques, the weapons shown are also a symbolization of battle technique. Ultimately, this image signifies a bloody conquest in an act of secrecy, use of harsh weapons, and massacre of blood in which Britain achieved victory.
This critique of the Boer War shows men killing with no ounce of concern for the victim. In this image, Britain citizens are absolutely ruthless using torturous items along with a decision to not wear military uniforms, rather, regular clothes including a covering of their eyes in which any enemy would be unable to recognize. A British answer towards the questioning of eye patches could include a persuasive remark such as, “My eye was covered causing me to accidently step on a man lying beneath my feet, unknowingly dropping a machete or screw hook directly on his face.” Britain’s murder in this image was not an accident. The two men shown had initially planned to kill the man lying on the ground. The men’s decision to not clean the specs of blood splattered on their pants or drenched into their shoes proves this scene of the Boer War was not an accident. With a prominent hanging of the British flag to show control or power these British citizens need to throw out the eye patches, represent their military system, and quit pretending as to hide their success of killing.
To Abby Jeffirs comment:
I didn't know how to reply to yours so I'm doing it here.
I agree with your statement about the African man trying to fight for his culture, however, a main point of this image is the dominance that Britain has. You describe the African mans effort to battle with him cutting part of the British flag fabric, but this act will not lead to cultural victory. It only, as shown, leads to British takeover. These African members need to stand up and actually fight for victory! War is won by battle, not who cuts ones flag first.
Rita,
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I did not mean that this is how the man was fighting for his culture literally. I believe that by him cutting the flag down it symbolizes the man, by cutting it open, is uncovering his own culture because the other culture was covering it.
The picture Prelude to the Scramble can be interpreted in many ways. When I look at the picture I see a lot of changes in Africa. This picture show how the “white man” came in their civilization to take over and change the way they were living. They also force them to work in their military, to work for them and force them into slave labors.
In the picture, you can see an African riding a horse chasing some animals, the African guys making a compromise with the white man and the white men shooting at the Africans. Even though some still were doing their normal thing, but it was going to change while the white men are there. These are all examples of how the white men were changing the civilization of the villages. It shows that they were not going to let anything to stop them even if they had to kill somebody. Because of this, it made the Africans to obey and work along with the white men and not get killed.
In the picture From the Cape to Cairo, many different aspects can present a myriad amount of ideas. The first thing I noticed was that the man who is dominating all of Africa is a white European male. This is clearly because the Europeans were involved in the Scramble for Africa. Another thing that catches my vision is the string that the white male is holding. This could represent how Europe has Africa on a string. They have complete power and are controlling their actions. I also noticed how the clouds surrounding the male's head are white, but the clouds that are soon approaching are black. I believe that this is foreshadowing an ominous event for the Europeans. As well as the clouds and the string, I also notice the gun in his belt. This is portraying that the technology of the Europeans is greater than the Africans which demonstrates how they have more power.
Also to Dean- What would make you decide your different viewpoints for the core of the conflict? I am a bit confused as to why you chose what you did. I think that there are many more different ways as to what has caused the conflict as well as many different reasons as to why certain people may be fighting for one another.
But Abby Vanhorn, wasnt the Africans enforce to harsh labors or force to be in their military? Because if they didn't agree with France, Europe, or any of the powerful countries trying to take over in Africa; wouldn't they get killed? I dont think that they were allies with the French. I feel that they were forced in their military and they didnt have anything to go back to.
The first part attracted me was the British flag on the up-left corner. It shows that during nineteenth century many European countries such as Britain colonized many African Countries in order to benefit from their Gold, agricultures and labors. I saw two hideous bad guys in this picture, one is fat and short on the left side, and the other is thin and tall on the right side. Cecil Rhodes was a statesman and also a businessman who played an important role to political and economics in colonial South Africa in imperialism. In addition, he tried to end the contradictory between Boers and British. The person on the right is Joseph Chamberlain, who was a statesman and an industrialist, agreed to colonize Boers and controlled them under British flag. Moreover, I can see there is a man under his left foot. Undoubtedly, he should be a Boer victim under imperialism.
In the illustration, Conquest and Competition, the first thing I see is the African soldiers fighting on Marchand’s side. To me this shows how the Africans agreed to fight on the side of a European colonial power because it benefited the people that chose to side with the power instead of being defeated by the power. Another thing that really stands out is the fallen soldier underneath Marchand. This shows how the Europeans didn’t respect or care about the Africans. It also represents that even when Africa had fallen, the Europeans didn’t care or worry about what was happening to the Africans, they just kept fighting for more power.
A final object within the illustration that stood out to me was the French flag waving in the background. This represents the takeover of the European colonial power and also the acceptance of the colonial power.
Abby, that is a very interesting point to visually show how the British colony replaced African culture with their own, simply by blocking it with their flag. I didn't think of it that way. What is your opinion on how the Africans could regain their culture? Because it is evident the African man who cut a piece of the fabric wanted to be back on the side with his culture.
The Image, in page 961, contains much more meaning than it appears to be. The image was a board game in late-nineteenth century, which featured the travels of David Livingstone and Henry Stanley. In the End, Henry Stanley finds Livingston, who was deep in the African interior. In order to analyze the image, I considered three major points, which are details of the animals, the landscape, and the activities that people are engaged.
Animals, plants, and landscapes chiefly represent two ideas. One of them is the new resources of Egypt, and British influences on Egypt. First of all, the variety of animals, mountains, seas, and plants represent the wild life of Africa and its raw materials, which can be used as an opportunity of investment and as a market for industrial products. Secondly, the houses and the lands of Egypt are colored golden. I presumed that it was representing Egypt in Golden Age, because British helped them. It is possible that British people thought that they helped Egypt. It is like the concept that we talked about in class. Thirdly, the sun represents that Egypt is British land. There is a quote, "this vast empire on which the sun never sets, and whose bounds nature has not yet ascertained," which means it is possible that this Board game was made after 1882, the year when Egypt was colonized by Britain.
There are many activities going on in the Board game, and for some activities I assumed that Board game was made after the colonization. First, there are waves around the British ship, when there aren’t any waves above the ship. Also there is an African rowing a small canoe, underneath European ship, which is within the waves. The violent waves underneath the British ship indicate that British are bringing the storm to Egypt. Small canoe represents Egypt, and difference between the British ship and Egyptian canoe shows that power of Britain is much greater than Egyptian power. Secondly, there are Africans running away from Europeans, who were shooting at them, which just seemed like a small rebellion controlled by small force. The Board game doesn’t include any of real cruel actions of British. Thirdly, Arabians are making Africans to lead the Camels, and work for them. Board game shows that Egypt was dominated by Arabians and they used Africans as slaves, which actually did happen until the colonization of Egypt by Britain.
The Board game is mainly based on the travel story of David Livingstone and Henry Stanley. It seems like there is Livingstone and Stanley at the end of the numbers, which is the end of the board game, because that is where Stanley found Livingston. When Stanley met Livingstone, he said a famous quote, “Doctor Livingstone, I presume?”
Rita,
To be completely honest, I think at this point it would be hard to gain his culture back. I say this because, if they fight back with violence they are in one sense becoming more like the British. Their culture would change no matter what they do, hopefully it would just be for the better, and it would better if it were the African's decision to change instead of being forced into it. For example, during the civil war America's culture changed but it was by our own free will, so it was seen as an advancement instead of a lost culture.
In the image on page 964, Cecil Rhodes is not just representing the railroad from Cape Town to Cairo (he does this with the line he is holding down by his feet and passes through his hands.) He is also, by his massive size in the picture compared to Africa below him, representing Europe’s control over Africa and how it is no longer it no longer belongs to its own ‘nations’. I agree with Morgan’s comment about the clouds and how they are significant, but I would like to interpret it differently. I think the clouds are white and bright above Africa to represent the joy, prosperity and power the Europeans have available to them in Africa. On page 942, “…the colonial enterprise was full of promise for a better future.” I believe the black clouds to the North are over Europe and represent that it is the old country, already known and not the place to be as a business man or fortune seeker any longer.
In the image on page 964, Cecil Rhodes is not just representing the railroad from Cape Town to Cairo (he does this with the line he is holding down by his feet and passes through his hands.) He is also, by his massive size in the picture compared to Africa below him, representing Europe’s control over Africa and how it is no longer it no longer belongs to its own ‘nations’. I agree with Morgan’s comment about the clouds and how they are significant, but I would like to interpret it differently. I think the clouds are white and bright above Africa to represent the joy, prosperity and power the Europeans have available to them in Africa. On page 942, “…the colonial enterprise was full of promise for a better future.” I believe the black clouds to the North are over Europe and represent that it is the old country, already known and not the place to be as a business man or fortune seeker any longer.
The picture of Conquest and Competition intrigues me among the all images. The reason why I cannot move my eyes from it is because it is the only one more like a reproduction of war’s scene instead of caricature. Conquest and Competition is a cover of a French publication, represents a heroic commander in French expedition ---Jean-Baptiste Marchand, who lead his troops to conquer Africa for more than eighteen months. In the picture, Marchand stands in the middle of picture with tidy military uniform and shiny medals. He faces the left side and points the other side. I cannot find a faint panic or nerves on his face, calm and serious is his emotion. However, between Marchand’s legs, there is a fallen soldier lying on the road, who is an African. The dead soldier wears a red hat and French military uniforms, lying on the road without any shoes. The expression of Marchand’s eyes is not clam any more; it makes me feel cold and cruel. A life in his eyes is as inconsequential as a straw that he even doesn’t need to cast a glance at. This is war, which changed people to become numb. Marchand, who is described as a hero on the epic journey also lost his compassion, victory is the only purpose of life.
The picture Conquest and Competition on page 962 show a French publication about the war in Africa. The picture portrays the French winning the battle with a French flag prominently displayed in the back ground and the French commander Jean- Baptiste Marchand proudly standing over a fallen soldier of the other military. Marchand is pointing to the right to what could possibly be commanding his soldiers to continue on with the conquest. The picture depicts that the violence was a major factor in the scramble for Africa a war broke out in what was a seemingly peaceful country. There is also a large number of African troops that are behind Marchand. I believe the Africans agreed to fight alongside the French because they did not like what the British were trying to accomplish and take over their country.
On page 962, in “Ways of the World”, the picture Conquest and Competition sparks several different thoughts regarding the colonial scramble of Africa. One of the views this illustration can give is that the African people fighting in the picture are actually fighting under the French Army. This meaning they bought into the colonization and used the French resources such as weaponry to help them in their colonial rule. Also there is a French Flag waving in the background over the fighting Africans, symbolizing their French colonial rule.
Post a Comment