On his very first page, James concedes that “change” driven by European imperialism generated conflict in Africa, but he never returns to dwell upon this at length. Instead, he immediately offers what seems like a pat, exculpatory defense: Europeans “believed [change] would benefit them and their African subjects.” This passage sets the tone for much of what follows. “Strange as it may seem, Charles de Gaulle, Mussolini, Cecil Rhodes and Nikita Khrushchev believed that their countries had something of value to offer Africans.” He calls the slicing up of different parts of the continent by its new colonial masters “a dual partnership of physical and spiritual regeneration [that] was appropriate for Africa, which in the popular imagination was depicted as a ‘dark’ continent.”
Blogs I Follow
- Recent stories in The New Yorker
- Aldous Harding covers “Right Down The Line” by Gerry Rafferty
- Budget transparency at private universities: Some thoughts about SCU
- Why does SCU want to take the faculty unionization straight to the NLRB? Because they could reverse every unionization on every Jesuit and other “religious” university
- Tactics when confronting a Trump-appointee dominated NLRB: “three would-be unions withdraw petitions”
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.