170 Contextual Analysis 2020 (PDF of Assignment Prompt)

 

Reflection:

Writing the contextual analysis helped me understand how to write a paper better. The process of researching was a whole other level, because I really needed amazing sources to support my argument, because my argument was very specific and bold. I learned that researching (after using my sources) gave me a better idea of how to construct my thesis, and how to then further write an in depth argument and analysis to support that thesis. From seeing the image in prior assignments, the contextual analysis actually kept the way I previously saw the image; a power difference because of racist ideologies. I saw the image at first and immediately thought the white man must have been selfish, because it looked like he was overly confident and rude. After reading the story that came with the image, I thought it was odd this white man was seen as a hero, because the photo did not give off that feel. So, when writing my contextual analysis, I researched and researched, and was able to write an argument about racism being present. The most difficult aspect of writing my contextual analysis was being able to pinpoint my arguments, because I have a few things I argue in there. After completing the revisions, I now know that my writing process has improved, but my writing demons are the inclusion of quotes. I had to revise some of my introductions to quotes. I was confident in my introduction the most because I did a few revisions on it to improve my argument and the flow. Based on what I’ve learned from conducting a contextual analysis, some elements of the research process I will take with me to the next writing project are how to pinpoint a better argument, how to introduce quotes, and how to finalize a paper at the end.

 

Contextual Analysis:

Albert Schweitzer’s Favorite Kind of Africans Were His Patients, His Toys.

   https://books.google.com/books?id=YFIEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA161&dq=albert+schweitzer&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwic98GF8N7mAhVuTt8KHSMEAHcQ6wEwAnoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=true
Daryn Seiden                                                                                                                                                                                April 26th 2020

European imperialism and racism infested countries worldwide and, in the 50’s, diversity within popular influencers, like magazines, was far from popular. If diversity was included in something, it was portrayed to support the concept of the white man’s burden. Life Magazine was one of these popular influencers, and in their November 15 1954 edition, they included a story about a European doctor working in Africa. The problem with the story is how it depicted Africans as helpless and in need of a white males power to fix them. The article titled, “A Man of Mercy,” which includes photos taken by Eugene Smith, describes how the man in the first image,  Albert Schweitzer, was a doctor who traveled to Africa to set up a clinic. Life gives no preview to this article on the 161st page, and all the pages including the feature image cover contain ads or short stories concerning white people: the magazine does not include any person of color until the feature article. 

Life wanted diversity in their magazine but knew they would lose readership if they advertised the feature article or included more people of color in this edition. Life’s strategy to keep readership was to have no preview of the feature article and purposely putting it close to the end of the magazine. Life was either oblivious or they simply disregarded Albert Schweitzer’s benevolent racism, but Eugene Smith did not. Smith was onto something as he took these photos, because the article was written to put Schweitzer on a pedestal, but Smith’s photographs show an obvious power difference between Schweitzer and a black male, probably a patient of his. The first main image shows an extreme power difference and obvious cockiness from Schweitzer. Life wanted to show a white hero story as the beginning of “diversity” in their magazine, which was perfect because a white hero is exactly what Schweitzer wanted to be. If the reader knew the feature article was in the magazine, they may not have purchased the magazine at all, which Life took into consideration. The essay will examine and describe why and how Schweitzer and Life Magazine were racist. Then, I will explain how Life obliviously included photographs which scream racism. In the present day, if a doctor was helping in another country, and they were a racist, and it was documented, they would most likely be fired or “canceled.”

Life certainly did not want to lose readership by including an article with people of color in it in this particular edition; therefore, they were purposely acting in a discriminating fashion. The magazine advertised no preview of the feature article, even though it was the only “serious” story in the magazine. Life avoided the inclusion of blacks in order to keep their audience. The other pages only included white people in ads, none were in articles concerning a serious story. There are studies to show Life lacked diversity, and when they did include a person of color in the magazine, it was not in a normal setting. According to Sheila Webb, “The presentation of poor blacks put that group outside the middle-class ideal that the magazine presented so richly and fully. The fact that blacks appeared so rarely, and when they did, sometimes in an unfavorable way, tended to eliminate their role in American life that the editors proclaimed for whites, which was the group that figured mainly in Life’s pages”(51). Life represented the ideal lifestyle as a white family. They one hundred percent underrepresented black people in society, because Life workers believed so, and because they knew their readership did as well. Life knew exactly how to keep the attention they were receiving, knowing their audience was white(Webb, 51). Life knew exactly how to keep their readers satisfied, and knew their methods of integrating “diversity” would not turn them away. Life acted dismissive towards normalizing black culture in the media, similar to how Albert Schweitzer acted dismissive towards his patients. 

Albert Schweitzer was a benevolent racist; he thought of the fellow Africans around him as incompetent. His mindset towards them resulted in him calling them derogatory names, seemingly unprofessional. His work ethic might have seemed professional according to most articles about him, but other articles say the opposite because of the way he spoke to or about patients. For example, some of the names he used for his patients were condescending and racist: “He often called Africans “primitives” and “savages”-but spent little time on what was morally superior in so-called primitive philosophy”(Mazrui 99). Although Schweitzer lacked respect for his patients, he was still seen as a hero by most from the positive articles written about him only because the writers failed to include his racism. People rarely cared to write anything negative about a medical hero who went to Africa, because racism during this time was common. Unfortunately, the people he worked with dealt with his condescending and benevolent side. His patients must have felt like they were being used for their bodies as medical toys because he made them feel unworthy of respect; according to Mazrui, “As far as Africans were concerned, he was interested in their bodies as patients and not in their minds as thinkers”(99). Schweitzer was a recognizable medical hero rewarded for his help in the community, despite the fact he caused his patients to feel incompetent. It must have been emotionally draining for his patients and the people who knew his racist side to endure his condescending nature and, at the same time, see his success.

Schwetizer acted superior to his patients, not only when he arrived in Africa, but beforehand. He was a racist because he disregarded African culture and thought it was not important to learn: Schweitzer went to Africa with little to no knowledge of their culture. He believed his status would make the issue of him not knowing their culture work for him instead of against him. The scholarly author, Mazrui, talks about Schweitzer’s racism in how he disregarded cultures. Mazrui is a person who unfortunately has felt discriminated, because he is Muslim, so he understands the lack of respect people have towards other cultures. Mazrui puts himself in the Africans shoes that Schweitzer worked with, and was pained by his racism, “In contrast, he spent many years in Africa without studying African thought”(99). Schweitzer went to Africa for recognition and self pride, because going somewhere with no knowledge of culture or respect for the people seems like he did it for himself and not his patients. According to Judith Wagner, another critique of his behavior reveals, “by some he was deemed autocratic and paternalistic towards the staff, not accepting the local African people as equals but rather regarding them as “my brother, but my younger brother.”’ Because Albert Schweitzer had such value in life, he took it upon himself to help people who really needed it, but because he felt it was his duty. This is similar to the “white man’s burden,” if you will. The white man’s burden is rooted in the long history of racism against African Americans. Schweitzer, in all likelihood, had the white man’s burden outlook as he worked in Africa. There are various definitions to it, but it practically means: Europeans have long thought their lifestyles were the most important and needed to be shared with people who seem “less civilized” to them. According to Feagin, European racism contained the idea that Africans were all around ugly, dangerous, and degenerate (55). 

Eugene Smith, as the photographer, reflected Schweitzer’s racism in the photographs he submitted for the feature article. Eugene Smith purposely captured photos representing Schweitzer’s supremist cockiness. Life included the main photo, as well as others which give off a more depressing feel, rather than a positive medical story. As Smith worked with Schweitzer for this article, it was brought to Smith’s attention that Schweitzer was not as much of a medical hero as the written article describes him to be. Smith found Schweitzer difficult to deal with when working with him for the photo essay, “He found Schweitzer to be somewhat vain, very authoritarian and unwilling to allow the photographer to wander about and pick his own subjects to photograph”(Dobbins). Smith was a recognized and well respected photographer because he captured great stories with his photography and he respected people of all races when doing so. Before reading the essay, the photographs seem as though Schweitzer held the power in a negative way, and the Africans separate from him in the other photos look sad and poor. With respect to the images and Smith’s reflections on Schweitzer’s character, interpretations may be made suggesting Smith captured a difference in power because of the benevolent racist Schweitzer was, but not necessarily purposely to offend Schweitzer. This was simply because a power difference WAS present. In fact, according to the author Dobbins, Smith despised the typical white hero story and wanted to capture a more beautiful medical one, “But Smith was unwilling to do another shallow “great man” picture story and finally told Schweitzer if he wasn’t able to shoot what he wanted he would leave and Life would get no photographic essay… Smith found Albert Schweizer to be somewhat vain and very controlling”(Dobbins). Smith had to threaten Schweitzer to photograph as he pleased, because Schweitzer wanted to look like a hero instead of a professional workman. These photos give off a negative feeling, like something is not right; Smith thought of Schweitzer as vain, authoritative, controlling, and difficult. These negative feelings are represented in the photos. If Schweitzer was condescending and difficult with a white photographer trying to help represent Schweitzer’s story, then Schweitzer must have been much worse to his black patients.  

Life Magazine wanted to include a white hero story, and Albert Schweitzer wanted to be the star; however, Eugene Smith was against this idea because of his perspective on how to tell a story through pictures. Nonetheless, the photographs were very telling of how Albert Schweitzer viewed white heroes, supposedly himself, and how Life viewed white hero stories. The story in “A Man of Mercy” differed from the photographs, because each send different messages: the written article praises Schweitzer and his work in Africa while the photos capture a sad atmosphere, then sick Africans, then a picture of Schweitzer with a patient who looks scared while Schweitzer emanates powerful energy, and then Schweitzer by himself working. Eugene Smith was known for his storytelling through pictures he did not care what society thought about what he was capturing. For example, he normalized black people in his pictures by photographing life as it was, maybe a family, even birth in a clinic. In addition, Smith donated money to a clinic he photographed after it gained popularity, and he said it was “the most rewarding story I have ever done”(Dobbins). To say the least, Smith was a charismatic person who felt a lot of respect towards the people he worked with. Therefore, with this information, Albert Schweitzer’s racism and power greed is believable since Smith supposedly thought Schweitzer was controlling with an authoritative personality. In an ideal world, Albert Schweitzer could have been a selfless doctor. He could have wanted his and his patients stories heard in a compassionate way. Schweitzer wanted a prize, a reward more than anything, so his unsympathetic nature was seen and felt with the people he worked with. If negative articles concerning Schweitzer were popularized, is it likely that his legacy would have been pulled down? If Eugene Smith’s critical view was shared regarding Schweitzer, is it possible that people may have disliked Schweitzer? Smith captured Schweitzer’s negative authoritative energy, so the photos differ from the story and Life was oblivious to this because they only cared for a rewarding white hero story. The path of normalizing black people in the media occurred later on, when it should have happened much sooner. Those kinds of things took time. There are still controversial aspects of the media revolving around people of color today…

 

      Works Cited

 

“A Man of Mercy.” Life Magazine, 15 Nov. 1954, pp. 161–172.

 

Dobbins, Bill. “W. Eugene Smith: The Tortured Artist of Photography.” Samy’s 

Camera Photo Blog, 10 Aug. 2017.

 

Feagin, Joe R. “African-American Studies.” Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2nd ed., vol. 1, 

Macmillan Reference USA, 2001, pp. 53-59. Gale eBooks, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3404400017/GVRL?u=newpaltz&sid=GVRL&xid=0096f812. Accessed 8 Mar. 2020.

 

Mazrui, Ali A. “Dr. Schweitzer’s Racism.” Jstor, Indiana University Press, www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2935176.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A23f0eb9d0a2a1e861a986b6ab3f35506.

 

Wagner, Judith N. “The Albert Schweitzer Hospital in Lambaréné, Gabon.” Hektoen International, Hektoen Institute of Medicine, 23 Feb. 2017, hekint.org/2017/02/23/the-albert-schweitzer-hospital-in-lambarene-gabon/.

 

Spangenberg, I. J. J., and C. Landman. The Legacies of Albert Schweitzer Reconsidered. AOSIS, 2016.

 

Webb, Sheila. “The Tale of Advancement: Life Magazine’s Construction of the 

Modern American Success Story.” Journalism History; Athens Vol. 32, Iss. 

1,  (Spring 2006): 2-12.