In King Leopold's Ghost Adam Hochschild uses a uncommon structure to accomplish this goal. He reports facts through personal narratives unlike a traditional textbook. Although both still aim to portray historical occurrences Hochschild's work is built on primarily personal narratives. He claims at the start how almost all evidence left of the story of the Congo is the white colonists perspective, however he still manages to weave narratives to create or recreate the real story of the Congo. The lack of congolice narrative is actually not at all uncommon even in western terms since our history books are primarily the white narrative.
Hochschild use of personal narratives however allows him something that textbooks do not achieve. He is able to accurately portray the personalities, views, and ideas of the people of that time. Early on in the book he uses these narratives to expose the myths legions and spiritual ideas surrounding the Congo and its inhabitants. He talks about the fear instilled in Europe in relation to the Congo as well as the fear instilled in the congolice by their own beliefs that the white colonists are ancestral ghosts. 
Hochschild also include stereotypes as well as bias tones which isn't usual historical format. However since he does this through personal narratives it fits since it is only expressing that persons story. The inclusion of personal occurrences allows the reader a deeper personal understanding of what's going on. Which then overcomes the biggest adversity for history textbooks, that they lack the ability to allure the reader if the reader doesn't acknowledge that the people in the history books as real people.
Hochschild doesn't only use stereotypes to stereotype the congolice but also to dupe just about every powerful nation of that time. For example when Stanley goes forth to get the International African Association recognized as "the flag of a friendly government." he stereotypes Americans as lovers of freedom with the claim that IAA is an advocate for free states in Africa.
I think that the general idea you formulated was entirely spot on. Hochschild uses bias in his writing and constructs a personal narrative in the story. Where you may have missed the point though, or where you were more unclear was in his purpose for doing so. Two main things stood out pretaining to this. The first was where you cited the lack of African history of imperialism and how Hochschild almost accidentally fills this gap. Indeed in the book it was stated by Hochschild that one of his main purposes in writing the book was to be the voice of these Africans, I think you picked up on this, but just didn't convey it in this post very well. Secondly you cite Hochschilds stereotyping of the Native Congolese as something that happens in the book. The way that you wrote this sentence, especially so late in the post sort of undermines previous points you made about his disapproval and bias against/ for imperialists and Europeans in general. Again I believe that you understood his "use of stereotype" as you call it, but this sentence and indeed the whole last paragraph is sort of out of place. Lastly you focused alot on Hochschilds "personal narrative" and its effect in the reader, I believe using more from the text citations and examples instead of generalizing statements would make your claims much more substantiated. Overall I agreed with most of what you said, but the method in which you said it lacked something for me.
ReplyDeleteWow! I really liked how in-depth you went with all your analysis. Every idea you presented was thoroughly fleshed out, and nothing felt as if you had skimped. In particular, I enjoyed your commentary on the stereotypes presented in the book and how it compares to information you would find in a text book. Also the pictures were pretty cool.
ReplyDeleteI agree Kimberly, telling history through personal narrative does allow readers a better understanding of historical figures and their motives. I would also like to point out that no matter how hard we try there will always be a slight bias in historical texts.
ReplyDelete