Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said and documented, but what it comes down to is that white people are either good or bad, largely based on social status (Canler is an exception), while black people are either bad or ignorant (Black Michael might be an exception). (I don't remember the specifics of the noncannibalistic tribe.)
On a par with other fiction from that era? I don't know. The books I've read from the early 20th century seem to either ignore black people entirely or include a jolly black household servant akin to Esmeralda.
|
I didn't think Black Michael was actually black. I figured maybe Irish, only because of the fairly common description "black Irish" and there was one "D'ye understand?" in his speech which may or may not mean anything.
I thought Esmeralda seemed a fairly clear case of either race or class prejudice (or both) - and somewhat over the top.
This book couldn't realistically ignore the existence of the African population in Africa, but I didn't find it at all surprising that it found no room for presenting a heroic version of any of the cannibal villagers, nor others that are met oh-so-briefly later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl
Wasn’t the cannibal tribe established as a village in the jungle because they escaped and ran away from poor treatment by white civilization? Then there were the comments about the harshness of Leopold II’s rule and the Belgian soldier behavior.
|
Correct.