Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Explorers or Imperialists?

19:13 / 01.08.01

Today, August I, is the birthday of William Rogers Clark, of 'Lewis & Clark' fame. In honor of him, I pose the question- is there a difference between the two?

19:21 / 01.08.01

Well...countries don't send people out to explore other countries merely out of sheer curiosity. They always want something (land, resources...) out of it.

19:26 / 01.08.01

Although it's generally the explorers who want to go in the first place, and seek funding from the governments.

09:10 / 02.08.01

but the whole concept of the 'explorer' is inherantly impirialist. the idea that it was the advent of white europeans discovering america/australia/wherever that was important rather than the histories of that lands indigenous populations.

09:13 / 02.08.01

I wouldn't like to narrow down the concept of "explorer" to white europeans. There are plenty of explorers from other demographics (although most are probably less well documented).

09:21 / 02.08.01

but my point is that the explorer is *always* the intruder, the interloper the vanguard of another place. the example of the white european (from leif erricson to neil armstrong) is just more obvious and plentiful than, say, Ibn Battuta, however Battuta was still an imperial influence spreading the contagion of his culture with him as he traveled.

[ 02-08-2001: Message edited by: sleazenation ]

09:28 / 02.08.01

Actually I don't see that point being made in your first post. That the explorer is an intruder does not necessarily mean that they are imperialist. Burton, for example.

Also, why "contagion?" Is there a background noise of the noble savage in that comment?

09:51 / 02.08.01

quote: Is there a background noise of the noble savage in that comment? i'm not sure what you mean by this. could you explain?

I for my part was refering contagion as in virus. the spread of empire can be likened to that of a virus or infection-- smothing difference and rendering all that is 'other' into the 'imperial'.

I think your definition of imperialist might be a bit different to mine. An imperialist need not be attached to an Empire per se but be part of any group that is able to differentiate between themselves (members of their group- whatever that might be) and others. Their identification of any area as 'other' is an act of imperialism. Thus exploration of any area outside the empire (the area of influence of the exploring group) is necessarily an exertionof the empire on the 'other'

does that make sense?

what do other people think?

09:51 / 02.08.01

I read "contagion" as having negative connotations, and implying that the countries "discovered" were being in some was corrupted by the West. The Noble Savage is the idea that "native" populations exist in some state of natural grace where they live in harmony with their surroundings, for example the popular public perception of the American Indians who only killed what they needed, and found uses for every single part of each animal that they killed. This, unfortunately, is a romantic notion which isn't true.

I don't accept that exploration causes the smothering of difference. On the contrary, it promotes changes and the interbreeding of cultures to produce new, baby cultures.

I think, without wanting to be offensive, that your definition of imperialist is somewhat narrow, and personal. Dictionary.com's first definition was:

im·pe·ri·al·ism (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

People always differentiate between themselves and others. It is part of the way in which identities are formed (Lacan?), not only between countries but between any group of individuals, and even between individuals themselves.

09:51 / 02.08.01

Explorers also brought real 'contagion' with them. Like the spainish bringing smallpox to the 'new' world. Such a wonderful cultural exchange...

09:51 / 02.08.01

from the oxford concise dictionary

imperialism n. rule of an emperor; (hist) extention of the British empire where where trade required protection given by imperial rule; (Hist) union of different parts of the british empire for purposes of warlike defence, internal commerceetc (usu. derog.) (belif in the desirability of) aquiring colonies and dependencies, or extending a country's influence through trade, diplomacy, etc.

As you might expect of the concise OED - their definition relies heavily on the notion of BRITISH imperialism as its main model, but still it points out that desire of one group (or nation state) to have influence over another is at the heart of imperiALism.

As far as contagion etc. goes i think that such a notion as the nobel savage as being in their own way superior to those 'nasty old white europeans' way over simplistic.
The relative merits of the native americans way of life (or any other group of people/nation) versus those of white europeans (or any one else that is 'other' to them) are not strictly relevent and is instead freaquently used as a justification for an empire that is seeking to 'influence' or as in the case of the British Empire 'civilize' a people.

z3r0

09:51 / 02.08.01

Imperialists exploiters, of course. Trust me, I'm a reliable source...

13:04 / 02.08.01

A few things before I go off exploring....

I don't consider Ibn Battuta an explorer. He travelled to lands already known to the Islamicate culture sphere, admittedly more widely than any before or after (I believe he surpassed Marco Polo by several hundred miles in sheer ground covered).

Burton on the other hand, though one that. He was obsessed with making his name in the Royal Society. Buckminster Fuller in 'Critical Path' (his only book currently in print and just an awesome tome for anyone into BU) writes about the closing out of the physical geography of the Earth for the most part in the eighteenth century being a spur to the intellectual exploration of known (or 'known-ish') space via 'intelligence agents,' witting or otherwise. Come to think of it, this is also the central thesis of Edward Sa'id's 'Orientalism.'

Burton is more akin to the sort of exploration and challenge to cultural norms I see around here. Sleazenation writes that the explorer is always an intruder. Yes, but what about invading staid cultural grounds like drugs and sex (and languages) a la Burton? Or, more directly related to this site, William S. Burroughs. Was he not an explorer? If not, what was he?

z3r0

13:07 / 02.08.01

Hmmm... I think I'll just really pass this one on...

15:23 / 02.08.01

What about the ability to go off into the unknown and make it knowable?
What about the ability to take a long hike into unfamiliar territory, away from the cell phones, traffic and noisy neighbors?

What's the alternative to exploration? Sitting still??

19:16 / 02.08.01

quote:Originally posted by better the Fool you know:
Explorers also brought real 'contagion' with them. Like the spainish bringing smallpox to the 'new' world. Such a wonderful cultural exchange...

Your implication seems to be that they deliberately brough disease with them, because they were "evil." As opposed to it being purely accidental.

And, for that matter, who's to say that the same hasn't happened in reverse? The only reason that smallpox was dangerous in the new world was that the natives didn't have built-up immunity, so it would make sense that there would be similar diseases that we wouldn't have protection against.

ynh

20:59 / 02.08.01

The cultural (what a pun, folks) exchange occured thusly: european airborne pathogens devastated two continents home to millions, and these two continents dished out some rather embarrassing bloodborne nasties in return. Thank the natives for your syphilis and gonorrhea, for example.

Some of these European folks did, in fact, intentionally bring diseases to the new world, or further into it at least. Now were they evil? On my good days I think genocide is evil. The ones who didn't know, well, they were often assholes, too, but not contagion-school assholes.

The drift towards Cultural Imperialism begs the question: Do we count Disney as a cultural explorer?

09:10 / 03.08.01

guys and gals, please go easy on ol' willy clark, after all, if HE didn't discover the pacific(in relation to america, of course), we may never have known it was there...

17:53 / 03.08.01

Yeah, I greatly admire Wllm Clark. If the US had pursued a tack more in line with his diplomatic ease regarding the Native Americans, we'd be in a very different America today.

Of couse, there is the whole 'York' thing. York was Clark's black slave who was quite a novelty among the Amerinds, almost to the point of being accorded all the respect of a tribal shaman. And he was as free on the trail as any of the men in the Corps of Discovery (which was a military expedition, so really, no-one was free except Clark, Lewis and their translators, Pierre Toussant Charbonneau and his wife Sakakawea). After the adventure, York asked for his freedom, and didn't get it for over a decade.

I do admire all explorers, obviously imperialistic or otherwise. They're all insane- consider Magellan's delusions, Burton's syphillitic ramblings, John Colter's insane winter dash through Yellowstone country with barely a thirty pound pack on his back.

Relating to more of what Grant wrote, what about new explorers? Explorers of the new cultural mindscape, writers, artists, musicians... are they explorers or something else?