Explorers House: National Geographic and the World It Made
Robert M. Poole
Pub. Date: October 2004
FROM THE CRITICS Publishers Weekly
"Alexander Graham Bell didn't just invent the phone: he cofounded one of the world's great magazines. Bell and Gardiner Hubbard, a blue-blood Bostonian, launched the National Geographic Society in 1888.
The organization and magazine grew steadily over the years, with more people, places and things for its members to discover. However, the magazine's growth often overshadowed subagendas of racism, sexism and conservatism within its offices, according to Poole."
Thought Writes:
Has anyone read this book? I think by doing more research on an organization like the National Geographic Society we can understand why they choose to represent the Ancient Egyptians in the way that they do.
posted
From what I understand, even though the purpose of National Geographic was to educate and learn more about the world including the places, peoples, and cultures, there is no doubt that at the time of its inception in that day and age there were racist and sexist undertones. All the information they had on Egypt was based on the "Egyptology" of its day. And today it still is.
The good thing is that today's egyptology is slowly changing!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 22 May 2005).]
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Doesn't it typify in that respect a US perspective?
Thought Writes:
I agree. I believe we need study the history of early Egyptology and the scholars and philanthropists who maintained it to understand the current state of affairs. I agree intitively that this culture is historically racist and that the scholarship reflects this fact. However, we must build the case through tangable historical fact and knowledge to prove this beyond a shadow of doubt. When we do so we will then be able to connect the dots between Hawas, the National Geographic Society and KMT Magazine and make it apparent for all to see.
posted
I wonder when the attack would come. the level of ignorance in the above thread is simply astounding.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the major archaeological institutions in the US and Britain were founded by rich people who wanted someplace to donate the wealth they plundered from overseas. The famous expedition to Tut's tomb was marred by much political intrigue mainly because the Europeans treated the search for Egyptian antiquities as a treasure hunt for priviledged wealthy European colonialists. This too was another example of wealth and priveledge being used to plunder historical wealth. If it hadn't been for the power struggle going on in the political realm, much of Tut's tomb may have dissappeared into private hands. Egypt, trying to get out from under British hegemony, was determined to stop this plunder and claim the antiquities of Egypt, more for the sake of sovereignty and resistance of British colonial power than the actual respect or care for ancient Egyptian culture.
By the way, the intrigue surrounding Carter and why he was expelled from Egypt, is a perfect example of the problem with Egyptology. Carter felt he "Owned" the artifacts from Tut's tomb, much to the chagrin of the Egyptian government. This attitude was the same attitude of all the European colonizers from Napoleon on down had toward other peoples cultures. They felt that as the most advanced cultures of the world, somehow the great ancient cultures were part of "THEIR" legacy and not really part of the past of the peoples they came to subjugate. Therefore, the creation of the so-called science of Egyptology has been created from this background to reinforce the concept of this great ancient civilization being the legacy of modern european empires. Egyptology/Archaeology becomes another form of colonialism, albeit one that wears the thin disguise of "science", but really is as much part of the colonial system, since it allows European powers to control the history and perception of other cultures by making itself the authority over what is and what is not accepted within the realm of archaeological ideas. In the early days of archaeology/anthropology, every attempt was made to reinforce the notion that every culture outside Europe was a remnant of the pre-civilized world that was being replaced and improved by the advancement of European attempts to "civilize" the planet. Only after the advent of civil rights in America, did this outright racist use of science to justify subjugation come to an overt end. However, this legacy is hard to shake and it still permeates the core of the institution of Archaeology. The reason is that these institutions perpetuate the notion of Europeans as the only ones with the mental capacity to take and analyze evidence in order to come up with the "truth". Sure, the y say it is because of the education and training, but most of that training has to do with "HOW" to dig up remains without destroying them. The vast remainder of archaeology is all about how to interperet what has been found. Europeans lack the socio/political background, in most cases, to accurately asses the import of these finds based on the fact that they themselves are foreigners. However, to try and mitigate this fact, they use the confusion caused by years of outright colonial oppression and subjugation as subterfuge to suggest that they, being apart from such matters and not subject to similar oppression, therefore are more suited to doing the analysis. This then makes it easy to hide the fact that they are foreigners and should not be the predominant experts on another cultures history. It should be the opposite, of course if it weren't for the insidious history of oppression, genocide, corruption and colonialism that allowed themselves to be put in such a position over other peoples culture. Despite all of this, modern archaeology still tries to maintain that it is "impartial" and "honest" and only searching from the "truth", as if they can do away with all of the skeletons in the closet with a flick of the wrist. It is almost funny how Archeologists treat the idea of the native people of any region being the predominant experts in the area of archeaology and in control over their own heritage. They try and act as if this notion somehow represents an attempt on the part of the natives to "steal" their right to know, as if the natives rights to know and be in control of their own history is a threat to a Europeans intellectual history. So I guess that means it is ok for the natives to stay poor and starving, because if they weren't and they were allowed to control and interperet their own heritage, the Europeans would justifiably be in trouble.
[This message has been edited by Doug M (edited 22 May 2005).]
posted
From what I have heard in this forum, the current political establishment in Egypt is racist. I base that on their reaction to Louis Gossip Junior playing Answar Sadat. I also read this pretty good book, though rather eurocentric, called the Blue Nile which also describes the Arab/Egyptians as being somewhat racist. So if I was National Geograpic and wanted to maintain good relations in order to maintain rights to escavate in Egypt, I certainly would go along with the politically correct (according to the Arab ruling class in Egypt) portrayal of Ancient Egyptians.
posted
• "They try and act as if this notion somehow represents an attempt on the part of the natives to "steal" their right to know, as if the natives rights to know and be in control of their own history is a threat to a Europeans intellectual history."
Enjoyed the post.
As I see it, the threat is very real on a number of fronts and has been for centuries.
posted
There is so much mental rot on this board it is beyond repair. Doug, with all due respect that is the most absurd argument I have ever heard. Its all just a huge conspiracy by rich westerners? I'm going to save that post to get laughs at parties.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: There is so much mental rot on this board it is beyond repair. Doug, with all due respect that is the most absurd argument I have ever heard. Its all just a huge conspiracy by rich westerners? I'm going to save that post to get laughs at parties.
There's plenty of evidence in the past that many Europeans have falsified history in order to justify oppression. This is not really a debatable issue, the problem is your lack of education. Frankly, you seem to have just crawled out from under a rock.
If you would like, I can start a thread discussing how Europeans intentionally distorted history to maintain concepts of White Supremacy?
I am not saying that this is the case in Egyptology in reference to National Geograpic (I already stated my opinion). Many Europeans did believe that the Ancient Egyptians were black and did document that fact. Many Europeans today are doing a great deal of work to uncover a Black part of history that has been lost (Nubia). Frankly, more Afrocentrics should be involved in these works rather than trying to waste their time redefining the absurd concept of RACE.
Again, Mexican is not a RACE but a Nationality. Egyption is not a RACE but a Nationality (the Ancient Egyptions contained many racial types but the pre-dynastic Egyptions were predominantly black). The idea of trying to classify all North Africans as Caucausian comes from the fact that Northern Europe is primarily homogenous. Now that the homogenous nature of Europe is changing, so are these political race lines that defined Black and White racial concepts when there are plenty of Gray areas.
Bigots don't like to deal with the Gray areas but then the world is seeing a demise of bigotry. God's speed to its demise!
posted
The national geographic society and all of the other institutions of archaology and anthropology cannot be viewed as being above the issues of race and bigotry. These institutions are founded by and run by people, who are no less subject to being swayed by predjudice and hate as those outside of the organization. Many times people in these organizations want to be judged solely by appearances or the mere attempt at doing something honorable, without the necessary actions to back up noble aims.
The crux of the issue for the whole archaelogical/egyptological establishment is that you cannot separate the activities of institutions from the agendas and politics of the countries where they originate. Anyone who thinks that European obtained the vast amounts of Egyptian antiquities because of honest intellectual scholarship is purely ignorant. Likewise, just because your country is the owner of large amounts of plundered history, does not give you the right to claim someone elses history as your intellectual property. However, this is exactly what has happened in the case of Egyptology. The fact that Napoleon sent his army into Egypt, along with the historians and artists for documenting Egypt history, shows that the seemingly noble pursuit of history cannot be separated from the politics of the time when it comes to Egypt. This act, which some try to claim as "beneficial" to our understanding of history, is anything but. Actually, this act started one of the largest plunders of antiquities known to man. Hundreds of wealthy Europeans, spurred by Napoleons airs to greatness, followed his tracks and battled amongst themselves to see who could bring back the most loot. Local Arabs, who hated and despised anything not muslim, were glad to sell of anything they could find (legit or not), since they did not view Egyptian history as their heritage. On top of this, the British colonial powers of the time encouraged the plunder of artifacts for the glory of Britain. All the while, the native people of Egypt and their culture was being smashed and stolen by foreigners eager for fame and fortune. Once all of this loot and plundered history was taken back to Europe, someplace had to be set up to view these pieces and really start examining what was being brought back. Given the sheer amount of what was stolen and the fact that the British were still the colonial powers in Egypt, it was easy for early Egyptologists to begin to explore further and lay the foundation of modern Egyptology, with Europe as its home. These explorers and early Egyptologists were no different than the colonialists who ventured into inner Africa and far away places in search of exotic game. The locals were treated as servants that did all of the "hard" work, while the Europeans lived lives of luxury, cared for by their local servants. Of course these explorers brought their bigotry and predjudices with them to the field as the whole basis of the European venture into Egypt, starting with Napoleon was more about glory to Europe for having the POWER to go in and by force take what they wanted, be it land, wealth or other people's historical heritage. All of this was part and parcel of the British colonial era that surrounded early Egyptology. Bottom line, Egyptology is all about power, power to control access to someone else's artifacts, power to shut out opposing points of view, power to write up and propagate your "opinions" as fact, power to make yourself the "authority" over someone elses historical knowledge, power to push your own vision of ancient glory (and yourself in it) and power to place yourself at the top of someone else's history and culture.
After the British relinquished power in Egypt, the old colonial master once again raised up and was able to continue the domination of Egypt that started with the Islamic conquests. This time the banner was Arab nationalism and was really a reaffirmation of the Islamic cultural domination of Egypt that happened centuries before. Under this banner of Arab unity, it was easy to reinforce the notion of Egypt as an Arab country, identifying more with the identity, culture and HISTORY of the Arabs and Islam, not of Ancient Dynastic Egypt. These people cared nothing about Egyptian history and were only willing to accept coexistence with such monuments due to the opportunity of wealth and prestige that was offered by catering to European explorers. The arabs are more than happy to let the Europeans explore and be at the intellectual forefront of the exploration of Ancient Egypt's history. The only thing the Arabs want out of the deal is a greater share of the European tourist dollar that passes through the country.
quote:course these explorers brought their bigotry and predjudices with them to the field as the whole basis of the European venture into Egypt, starting with Napoleon was more about glory to Europe for having the POWER to go in and by force take what they wanted, be it land, wealth or other people's historical heritage.
The above must be kept in mind when the Eurocentrists decry the 'racialisation' of the discourse on history.
It is the ideology of race that Europe utilised to claim the history of non-European peoples in the 1st place.
posted
(Say, I like this new Doug M guy! Welcome!)
The best way to evaluate a publication is to read the publication. I repeateth myselfeth...
quote: THE red flag One glaring omission on this topic is the fact of the participation of The National Geographic Society in this 'reconstruction' business as well as being a sponsor of the "Tut tour" . They are the same ones who caused a stir when they did a computer reconstruction of the face of the sphinx back in 1991. Rather than elaborate on that and the society, I suggest the following:
a) Most public libraries have magazine collections, and they certainly have the National Geographic magazine.
b) Spend some time and browse these issues from the earliest to the present, focusing on articles on Egypt and other African countries
c) Take a particular note of their portrayal of all non-European peoples
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic