You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
aestheticascetic 's review for:
While I understand the massive value this book has held in the pantheon of historical works by (mostly) white writers depicting the colonial and neo-colonial rule of the European metropole on the African continent, it contains far too many of the author's personal biases and political opinions to be an effective take down of a system that is still very much replicated today. Examples include random asides which feel the need to discuss communism in the same breath as colonialism and fascism, the celebration of the reformist white characters even when their blind patriotism puts them squarely in the wrong, and, for some odd reason, a refusal to place the lion share of the current political situation in the Congo on colonial rule.
Hochschild mentions the lack of writing from African voices to fill out the stage of the Belgian Congo, and that is not squarely my problem with the novel. Rather, I am frustrated with how much the narrative does end up lending itself to the white savior narrative, especially this quote from the book which drove me livid: "Most of the Africans who fought this battle in the Congo perished, their very names unrecorded. In a sense, we honor Morel and Casement in their stead." Execuse me? This is the kind of ridicolous statement that belies the deep rooted ideological viewpoint of the project. Not to mention in the afterword where he paternalistically mentions Ireland and South Korea as examples of formerly colonized or subjugated territory which have now become successful beacons of progress, conveniently forgetting or not knowing the massive amount of help these countries have received, both publicly (or primarily in South Korea's case) clandestinely.
This book is an easy and enjoyable read and in some ways I fear that makes it a bit dangerous. Non-fiction does not need to be character driven to be enjoyable and I find that it is often to a works detriment when it is. It provides too large an oppurtunity for writers to project their own viewpoints on a time period and risks crowding out the facts with larger than life figures. I think part of the reason this book has been so well regarded is the attrocities of the Congo are too large to cause the book to fall into this camp, but oh boy does Hochschild try.
Hochschild mentions the lack of writing from African voices to fill out the stage of the Belgian Congo, and that is not squarely my problem with the novel. Rather, I am frustrated with how much the narrative does end up lending itself to the white savior narrative, especially this quote from the book which drove me livid: "Most of the Africans who fought this battle in the Congo perished, their very names unrecorded. In a sense, we honor Morel and Casement in their stead." Execuse me? This is the kind of ridicolous statement that belies the deep rooted ideological viewpoint of the project. Not to mention in the afterword where he paternalistically mentions Ireland and South Korea as examples of formerly colonized or subjugated territory which have now become successful beacons of progress, conveniently forgetting or not knowing the massive amount of help these countries have received, both publicly (or primarily in South Korea's case) clandestinely.
This book is an easy and enjoyable read and in some ways I fear that makes it a bit dangerous. Non-fiction does not need to be character driven to be enjoyable and I find that it is often to a works detriment when it is. It provides too large an oppurtunity for writers to project their own viewpoints on a time period and risks crowding out the facts with larger than life figures. I think part of the reason this book has been so well regarded is the attrocities of the Congo are too large to cause the book to fall into this camp, but oh boy does Hochschild try.