11 ms·

People of Africa (1921)

24 points by tux 11y ago

stuxnet79 11y ago
Very surprised that this made it to HN, but I wouldn't be shocked if it didn't spur any meaningful discussion considering how insular HN is. Labelling any post with "Africa" is the kiss of death in these parts.
- roninb 11y ago
  I mostly lurk here but I see far more comments like this, essentially baiting arguments about touchy subjects like race, gender, sexuality, and the like. I suppose it's more me inferring that it's from a "cis, white male" perspective more than you imply it by quoting Africa like it's not a real place...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
zfell 11y ago
This article is a great example of the kind of brain-washing that took place historically to justify inhumane actions. It gives very little attention to historical facts.
- B1FF_PSUVM 11y ago
  Good thing that does not apply to the output of the TV and movie industries. I'd be worried.
  - stuxnet79 11y ago
    Sarcasm right? I'm not even sure these days with the stuff I read on HN.
    - B1FF_PSUVM 11y ago
      Yeah, we poor fish tend to be a bit oblivious of the water ;-)
- frostirosti 11y ago
  Here's an example > Long, long ago, the Sahara was not quite so dry as it is now. There were rivers then, which have dried up since. When there was water, food would grow, and people could keep sheep and cattle. In those days there were several large cities there. But when the water began to dry up, the ground became sandy and nothing would grow. Then, whenever the wind blew, the sand was carried along and began to cover up the houses and temples. The people had moved away because their food would not grow, and soon the sand completely covered the old cities.
jbattle 11y ago
This is interesting reading. Such subtle and comprehensive propaganda. Anyone know more about this book? It seems to have been written by an English woman with a target audience of ??? Africans? I thought it might be a sort of catalogue of the British empire in Africa, but I don't think the British had much presence in the Congo.
- cb18 11y ago
  The very first paragraph explains in detail that yes, the target audience is Africans. It is hoped that this book and its companion volume dealing with non-African peoples will be the beginning of a series of simple, readable accounts for Africans of some of the various objects of general interest in the world of to-day. There are many such works published for the use of English and American children. But the native African has a totally different experience of life, and much that is taken for granted by a child of a Northern civilized land needs explanation to one used to tropical uncivilized surroundings. Again, the African knows the essential operations of everyday life in their simplest form, whereas the European knows them disguised by an elaborate industrial system. All this makes books written for English children almost unintelligible to a member of a primitive race. Why do you call it propaganda, comprehensive propaganda no less, without having seem to have even read it very closely? People just seem to be having this knee-jerk reaction to it in order to signal their adherence to the modern Regressive dogma.
  - jbattle 11y ago
    I'm wondering who exactly the target audience was. School children? University students? The general reading public? And yeah for sure it is propaganda. It is clearly trying to tell a pretty standard colonialist narrative that "Africa is a lovely place, too bad the Africans couldn't get their act together. It's OK though, the friendly, altruistic Europeans are here to educate and civilize the locals".
  - stuxnet79 11y ago
    The propaganda is in fact not very subtle. As an African reading the text it was quite evident and it's alarming to me that you were unable to pick up on it.
cb18 11y ago
They were always fighting among themselves, and no one could settle among them until there was peace and safety. At last the European nations made agreements with the chiefs, so that now in nearly every part of Africa there is a European governor to prevent wars and fighting. Again, in some ways the Europeans, enforcing peace and making many quick ways of travel, such as good roads and bridges, have helped to weaken the power of the chiefs. Nobody likes changes to come, and the old people are always sorry when their children begin new customs; but on the whole it is good for Africans that other nations came to their country, because they have brought peace in the place of war, and safety and freedom instead of the old fear of death or slavery. In other words, contrary to the nattering on you hear from the Regressives today, colonialism was by and large a good thing for those where it took place. 4. Europeans help Africans In this chapter we have read about one of the wisest tribes of the dark-skinned African people. The Arabs in the north came to Africa long ago from their own home in Asia, and the Europeans in the south came from their home in Europe. Both these races had learnt by themselves a great deal more than the African race has done. This is partly because their homes were not so hot, and so they had to think hard to get enough food and to keep warm. It is partly due, too, to the way in which for hundreds of years the people of Europe and Asia have been able to read and write, and have met and learnt from one another. The Africans never found out how to write, and so could only learn from each other by listening, never by reading. They were shut off from the rest of the world until one hundred years ago, and all they knew they had found out for themselves. But among the Africans some learnt more than others, and the Baganda are a tribe who used their minds as well as their bodies in becoming strong. So by thinking and learning they grew wise as well as powerful, and now Europeans and Indians have come to their country they are able to learn all these other races can teach them, which is far more than any one race could find out alone.
- ilitirit 11y ago
  That's a rubbish statement that you quoted. Some tribes often fought with each other, others didn't (eg. who were the Khoi-san people at war with?). And often, the ones who did fight amongst each other lost more in terms of lives and resources to colonizers than anything else. And not just because of fighting. Colonizers also brought with them diseases like smallpox etc that decimated native populations.
webwielder2 11y ago
Funny how the third paragraph comes to essentially the same conclusion as Pulitzer Prize winner Guns, Germs, and Steel.

24 points by tux 11y ago

Very surprised that this made it to HN, but I wouldn't be shocked if it didn't spur any meaningful discussion considering how insular HN is. Labelling any post with "Africa" is the kiss of death in these parts.

roninb 11y ago
I mostly lurk here but I see far more comments like this, essentially baiting arguments about touchy subjects like race, gender, sexuality, and the like. I suppose it's more me inferring that it's from a "cis, white male" perspective more than you imply it by quoting Africa like it's not a real place...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

zfell 11y ago

This article is a great example of the kind of brain-washing that took place historically to justify inhumane actions. It gives very little attention to historical facts.

B1FF_PSUVM 11y ago
Good thing that does not apply to the output of the TV and movie industries. I'd be worried.
- stuxnet79 11y ago
  Sarcasm right? I'm not even sure these days with the stuff I read on HN.
  - B1FF_PSUVM 11y ago
    Yeah, we poor fish tend to be a bit oblivious of the water ;-)
frostirosti 11y ago
Here's an example > Long, long ago, the Sahara was not quite so dry as it is now. There were rivers then, which have dried up since. When there was water, food would grow, and people could keep sheep and cattle. In those days there were several large cities there. But when the water began to dry up, the ground became sandy and nothing would grow. Then, whenever the wind blew, the sand was carried along and began to cover up the houses and temples. The people had moved away because their food would not grow, and soon the sand completely covered the old cities.

jbattle 11y ago

This is interesting reading. Such subtle and comprehensive propaganda. Anyone know more about this book? It seems to have been written by an English woman with a target audience of ??? Africans? I thought it might be a sort of catalogue of the British empire in Africa, but I don't think the British had much presence in the Congo.

cb18 11y ago
The very first paragraph explains in detail that yes, the target audience is Africans. It is hoped that this book and its companion volume dealing with non-African peoples will be the beginning of a series of simple, readable accounts for Africans of some of the various objects of general interest in the world of to-day. There are many such works published for the use of English and American children. But the native African has a totally different experience of life, and much that is taken for granted by a child of a Northern civilized land needs explanation to one used to tropical uncivilized surroundings. Again, the African knows the essential operations of everyday life in their simplest form, whereas the European knows them disguised by an elaborate industrial system. All this makes books written for English children almost unintelligible to a member of a primitive race. Why do you call it propaganda, comprehensive propaganda no less, without having seem to have even read it very closely? People just seem to be having this knee-jerk reaction to it in order to signal their adherence to the modern Regressive dogma.
- jbattle 11y ago
  I'm wondering who exactly the target audience was. School children? University students? The general reading public? And yeah for sure it is propaganda. It is clearly trying to tell a pretty standard colonialist narrative that "Africa is a lovely place, too bad the Africans couldn't get their act together. It's OK though, the friendly, altruistic Europeans are here to educate and civilize the locals".
- stuxnet79 11y ago
  The propaganda is in fact not very subtle. As an African reading the text it was quite evident and it's alarming to me that you were unable to pick up on it.

cb18 11y ago

They were always fighting among themselves, and no one could settle among them until there was peace and safety. At last the European nations made agreements with the chiefs, so that now in nearly every part of Africa there is a European governor to prevent wars and fighting. Again, in some ways the Europeans, enforcing peace and making many quick ways of travel, such as good roads and bridges, have helped to weaken the power of the chiefs. Nobody likes changes to come, and the old people are always sorry when their children begin new customs; but on the whole it is good for Africans that other nations came to their country, because they have brought peace in the place of war, and safety and freedom instead of the old fear of death or slavery. In other words, contrary to the nattering on you hear from the Regressives today, colonialism was by and large a good thing for those where it took place. 4. Europeans help Africans In this chapter we have read about one of the wisest tribes of the dark-skinned African people. The Arabs in the north came to Africa long ago from their own home in Asia, and the Europeans in the south came from their home in Europe. Both these races had learnt by themselves a great deal more than the African race has done. This is partly because their homes were not so hot, and so they had to think hard to get enough food and to keep warm. It is partly due, too, to the way in which for hundreds of years the people of Europe and Asia have been able to read and write, and have met and learnt from one another. The Africans never found out how to write, and so could only learn from each other by listening, never by reading. They were shut off from the rest of the world until one hundred years ago, and all they knew they had found out for themselves. But among the Africans some learnt more than others, and the Baganda are a tribe who used their minds as well as their bodies in becoming strong. So by thinking and learning they grew wise as well as powerful, and now Europeans and Indians have come to their country they are able to learn all these other races can teach them, which is far more than any one race could find out alone.

ilitirit 11y ago
That's a rubbish statement that you quoted. Some tribes often fought with each other, others didn't (eg. who were the Khoi-san people at war with?). And often, the ones who did fight amongst each other lost more in terms of lives and resources to colonizers than anything else. And not just because of fighting. Colonizers also brought with them diseases like smallpox etc that decimated native populations.

webwielder2 11y ago

Funny how the third paragraph comes to essentially the same conclusion as Pulitzer Prize winner Guns, Germs, and Steel.