Jay-Z is More Worried About His Image than the Image of Africa

After analyzing this photo of Jay-Z campaigning for Rocawear apparel, it is apparent that the Brooklyn born rapper/entrepreneur cares about his personal image and wealth, but does not care to address America’s interpretation of Africa. Instead, Jay further embeds America’s ignorant depiction of Africa by using a remote setting (Madikwe Game Reserve, South Africa) along with ‘exotic’ animals. Jay is a talented rapper and a savvy businessman, but his mistake of misrepresenting Africa has repercussions that he may never comprehend.

Let’s assume that Jay was not considering his impact on the image of Africa while he stood next to two gorgeous women holding lion cubs in the middle of a South-African game reserve. If Jay had understood how great of an influence he holds on America’s illustration of Africa, would he have taken the shot in the most stereotypical African scenery? As the owner of Rocawear, Jay could have chosen any male-model to be in the picture, yet he chose himself to strike the powerful pose. He could have chosen any place in the world to take the shot, yet he chose an area of Africa that is home to tourists and wild game. He could have made a positive difference in the way Americans perceive Africa, yet he showed the continent as an uninhabited territory that epitomizes the western world’s ignorant concept of the land. Although Jay’s conscious intentions likely included appealing to the masses, glorifying himself and his product, and making money, his exotic approach towards accomplishing success is no different than that of the colonial European map-makers, who recorded Africa solely to appeal their consumer’s interests and desires. With Urban-America in the palm of his hand, Jay-Z has unintentionally engrained the stereotypical image of Africa into the minds of America’s youth.

Water For Life or Rocawear?

Hip hop's President and CEO of Def Jam Records, Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter, is seen in this image walking through the roads of South Africa. With a model of one of his hoodies from his clothing line, Rocawear, Jay-Z has been captured around Africa appearing to be focused on more than just his Whater For Life campaign. This pushes forth my argument that Jay-Z may not only be devoting his time to the Water For Life project, but also to the South African look for his Rocawear campaign as well. Although Jay-Z has been successful with the Water For Life campaign, he also has a buzz from his Rocawear campaign that has both wardrobe and photos pertaining to African culture.

Jay-Z has a video/diary that shows the struggle in which young African children go through pertaining to trying to get healthy and clean water. Research says that nearly two million children die from unhealthy water and inadequate sanitation. This caused Jay-Z to get involved with this issue that is big in Africa. He states, "It’s the most basic element on the planet. It gives life to everything and it’s seemingly plentiful. But more than a billion people can’t get clean water for cooking, cleaning and bathing. 2.6 billion people don’t have access to adequate sanitation and 2 million children die every year from diseases caused by contaminated water." Jay-Z show his concern by teaming up with MTV and UN, in which he manages to tour several developing countries meeting with young people who do not have access to clean water. The campaign itself is a successful operation, but as my argument states there might be another reasoning behind his visits through the continent. Africa was one of the rapper/entrepreneur's tour stops and he says that at his stay there he was struck at how many of the world's poor lacked such a basic necessity. Did Jay-Z actually see the need of this continent or did he see a good advertising establishment? This would be a good rhetorical question to be asked to those who really may not know which to beleive.

In this image Jay-Z is presented as a leader of the young african communtiy where he has children following behind him. It is a known fact that the rapstar is a Godfather in the HipHop world, but it appears that he also wants be recognized as a top icon throughout Southern Africa. Not only does the picture present this type of image, but he is also wearing his Rocawear clothing which appeared in magazines for his company's advertisment. Jay-Z stairs into the camera, while the youth following behind and along him stair away. Noticing this in the image it makes the thought of Jay-Z seeing where he is going with his Rocawear campaign while others stair away withought the knowledge of what is going on in order to sell his product. He may have good intentions with is Water For Life campaign, but as some Europeans used highlights on Africa in order to sell a certain product or image he his doin the same.

Jay-Z Uses Stereotypes to Sell Rocawear

Jay-Z's Rocawear campaign in Southern Africa is filled with stereotypical images which motivates my argument that Jay-Z is ultimately using Africa as merely a marketing tool to add a stereotypically exotic African element to his clothing, increasing desire and exclusiveness, thus hoping to increase customers. 

  In this particular photo taken during Jay-Z's Rocawear South African campaign, he is standing betwixt two beautiful models with his arms draping both of them. This alone exhibits the idea of African women being objectified as plentiful and their main goal being to sexually satisfy men. The fact that he has more than one woman on his arms in an example of stereotypical idea of Africans having many wives. Both of the models are holding lion cubs, which suggests that the American influence can tame even the wildest "kings of the jungle," which is what Europeans thought they were doing to the Africans when they began colonizing the continent.  Also, more apparently, this adds to the exotic feel. It might make a potential customer feel as though by purchasing Jay-Z's clothes and accessories, they will also be seen as brave, exotic, unusual, and ultimately exclusive. This also ties into the fact that both models are wearing cheetah print, which is stereotypically associated with Africa pointing to the animals as the most important feature rather than the people.

Upon looking at direct responses to this campaign, people were generally praising Jay-Z for "showing that he cares." This all goes into the attitude that Africans are in dire need of a Western savior, which dates further back to the whole reason Europeans justified colonizing African territories in the beginning. Though Jay-Z may be motivated by good intentions, he is actually reinforcing stereotypes of Africa and carrying along the very European attitude that attempted to strip Africa of its identity. 

The "Ideal" African Vacation

The “Bradt Guide to Ghana” is a travel guide meant to give beginner travelers an insight of the exotic and yet somewhat familiar Ghana. It was originally published in 1998, by the “Africa expert” Philip Briggs, a London native that grew up in South Africa, and has travelled through most of the continent. The book gives the reader an image of an alluring Africa that is exotic but still familiar. Africa, more precisely Ghana in this case, is portrayed as an object that like an infant’s toy is at the same time entertaining and enthusing for the child, and safe enough for the parents to not worry.

Despite the fact that the book was published by the Bradt Travel Guides, which is a publisher of travel guides focused on culture and natural life of the places described, the introduction of this guide does nothing but call the attention of the reader for the wild and extreme. Briggs describes Ghana as the “Africa for beginners” that is still unspoiled. According to him, Ghana is the only country in West Africa that offers affordable and safe travel options. It is the perfect match for those looking for the “authentic” Africa, but not willing to get too close to it. It has all in one: the beautiful beaches, the jungles, the plantations, the wildlife, and the rivers, but at the same time has all amenities that Americans and Europeans find essential. The descriptions of Ghana are resumed to nature. Except for a brief paragraph about the slave castles along the coast, the author makes no reference to the cultural aspects of the country. It is interesting that in one of the paragraphs he mentions climbing the great mosques in the north, but does not mention how or why those were made.

These accounts on Ghana were written to feed the needs of an audience that is looking for the extraordinary. The image of Ghana, and I dare to say of Africa in general, is simplified to what people want from there. They want to see the nature and animals, but ignore the animals that are the same as them: human beings.

Animals & Attraction...Culture?

Philip Briggs’s 1998 tour pamphlet, “Guide to Ghana”, promises to depict “responsible travel with an emphasis on the culture and natural history of the region”. Briggs’s first mistake was putting a picture of a mona monkey on the guide’s cover. While mona monkeys do originate from West Africa, this does not solely constitute (if at all) Ghana’s culture and natural history.
Briggs goes further to state that Ghana has no “drop-dead” or “must see” big name attractions. He credits Zimbabwe for having Victoria Falls, Tanzania for Kilimanjaro, and South Africa’s Cape Town. This is all exotic-sizing Africa. When one is looking to immerse him or herself in other cultures, visiting attractions may not always be the best option. What happened to interacting with actual people? Instead, Briggs suggests watching mona monkeys play or trekking through “lush jungles” or swimming in gorgeous waterfalls to fully feel like you are in tune with the region. Briggs ultimately describes Ghana as a place that can be enjoyed but would be more enjoyable if there was a place one just had to visit in order to truly understand the culture.
We forget that in order to truly experience a different culture we must delve into the language, food, style of dress, traditions and customs. Most of us are so afraid to interact with people simply because we do not challenge ourselves to know things beyond our “norm” or what we grew up understanding. Truly understanding people from a different culture takes so much effort and willingness to learn, that we tend to shy away from it. Instead, we focus on easier regional aspects like landscape and animals. If we, like Briggs, continue to only focus on these so called “memorable highlights” how will we ever really experience different cultures?

A Step Forward

The fourth edition of the Lonely Planet West Africa travel guide was published in 1999. Despite the fact that this fairly contemporary guide uses several phrases and words that refer to what we have come to believe as Africa’s exoticism, adventure, and “primitive conditions,” it is a step forward in recognizing the diversity of environment and culture that the continent has to offer. If we more closely study the travel guide we will see subject headings such as “History”, “The Advent of Agriculture”, and “Early Society.” This really stood out to me because it is recognition of Africa’s own systems of government, cultivation, and history. It is a statement that Africa did not begin with colonialism and is quite capable of successfully functioning on its own without the influence of European culture. The guide effectively expresses Africa’s regions as separate communities of people and language that were independent of state lines that European colonist attempted to impose on Africa for their own benefit. This is very important because many people today still view Africa as one giant country whose people practice one common African culture. By portraying Africa as it truly is in guides such as this one, we will eventually be able to break away from this idea of one big Africa. The Lonely Planet guide also tells us much more about Africa than just the variety of animals that can be found there. Most travel brochures focus on the unfamiliar animals that are native to Africa because that’s what many travelers want to see. This travel guide provides sections on everything from climate and education to religion, language, and people. This is significant because it presents information on subjects that travelers should be interested in. When traveling to new places we should be interested in all aspects of the land and everything it has to offer including its people. Cultures all over the world have lots to offer that is different from what we know and we should be eager to learn from them. By providing the information and subjects that Lonely Planet does, the misconceptions about the continent of Africa will slowly be broken down.

Lingering lack of proper word choice

Some would like to think the way we think of Africa has evolved, but this travel guide for Ghana, published in 1998 then amended a mere decade ago, proves that to be incorrect. As a society we constantly use words with ulterior meaning to describe Africa and our experiences there, whether it is subconscious or not. The front page of Guide to Ghana by Phillip Briggs is adorned with an illustration of Campbell's Mona Monkey which, although the species is native to Ghana and other countries in Western and Central Africa, it immediately draws the reader's attention to wild life, not the people or the culture. Ghana begins in the mind of the reader as a zoo-like land rich in exotic animals. The bold, serif style of the title gives a vibe of the primitive, the uncut. Ghana is dubbed an 'Africa for Beginners' in the second sentence of the introduction and called "laid-back." This coincides with the stereotypical "wise" Africa view, that it offers a slower pace of life than the quickness of life in the U.S., but also suggests that other countries in Africa are something other than "laid-back," perhaps dangerous or too wild for the white traveller. Ghana is so varied, the guide boasts, that itself provides a "microcosmic first taste of Africa." Apparently, of the approximately 50 countries of Africa and all their people, cultures, landmarks, and wildlife, all can be found in this single, travel friendly country that prides itself in "catering to independent travellers." One of the more loaded sentences soon follows, as the jungle is described as "lush" and the beaches are "bone-white." Jungles and wildlife are often glorified and put on a pedestal by tourists, but it is bizarre that a text amended only 11 years ago would allow such something as blatant as "bone-white" slip through the cracks. Cannibalism was a commonly used stereotype that helped colonial imperialists categorize Africans as barbarians, furthering their case that they were lesser a people and acceptable to enslave. Later on in the introduction, there is talk of national reserves that go months on end without visitors, giving the traveller the sense that Ghana is still untouched, but they will be safe. Words like "adventurous" and "trailblazing" plague the pages, as if tourists reading the guide are making the first voyage ever to this strange and different land. All while letting them breathe a sigh of relief because, although it was one of the first African countries to "slide into post-independence chaos," "it never plummeted to the depths reached by, say, Liberia or Rwanda."

Changes

Out of Africa is a reflection of the lives of many wealthy people who traveled to Africa to embark on new business endeavors. It is at the same time a unique story in that it depicts the trials and tribulations of a woman in a way that could not have been so easily accomplished through the words of a man. She is sentimental and thoughtful, concerned with money and business without projecting greed towards her neighbors. At first I assumed that the film would serve the typical purpose of exploiting the mistreatment of the native people whom white money historically imperialize, but the situation was much more sensitive. Rather, we see a different truth in the way that life was conducted in the beginning of the 20th century, which I found refreshing. Karen moves to Africa with hopes of being a successful landowner, expecting to raise cattle, make money, and be satisfied. What she soon learns, is that this is a better way to live and it is more difficult than she expected. In her first monologue at the opening of the film she describes this realization as “a glimpse of the world through god’s eyes. And I thought, yes I see, this is the way it was intended”. Out of Africa tells the story of a woman’s discovery that living life with purpose is more valuable than any sum of money or land.
Karen had wealth, materials, and stature. Bored with her life in Denmark, she began to seek happiness and greater success. What she concludes, is that she must marry and travel far from the lifestyle of the Europeans to begin a new life. With her wealth and his ingenuity, she finds a very ideal relationship with her lover’s brother, but it is not one of affection. Rather, she marries the first man that she imagines will help her in reaching her dreams and we immediately realize that her idea of purpose is to be most affluent: marriage is material. Even after they wed she calls her husband “my lover’s brother” and teases him that she is going to leave him for Barkely Cole, who is very rich in the ivory trade. Her life in Denmark is of shallow intent. She is bored, depressed, and lonely. Thinking that Africa will bring her great success, she does not even begin to imagine the way she is about to change as a person. Her intention was to become an entrepreneur and she ends up becoming an insightful and powerful human being. She grows in many ways; in friendship, strength, and love, and this is proven by observing the differences between Karen at the beginning of the film in Denmark and at the end as she leaves Africa for the last time.
The first trait that caught my attention was her relationship with the coffee pickers on her farm. What many people don’t realize about the relationship between white landowners and the black tribes is that they were neighbors. They had to work together. Karen had to ask permission of the chief to build her plantation and hire his people, while they relied on her for the pay and resources. This is a refreshing contrast to the brutal stories of the slave trade in which there was no relationship between races and one simply owned the other. I believe that Karen cared deeply for these people and it was through this love that she began to release the tension that is fostered being raised in wealty, European society. She is personal with them, wanting them to be with her; safe, healthy, and prospering. When her farm burns and there is nothing left, she bends to her knees to ask the governor for more land so that the people would have somewhere to go. I’m not saying that she did not embrace her superiority, because she most definitely did. Everyone did. That was just the way it was and it was normal. What is more significant is that she, in a way, became them. She worked side by side with them and began to care less for money and more for the land and people; an outlook possessed by African peoples. The final moment the really threw her over the cultural border to me, was when she rode her horse all the way to her husband’s site and called the difficult, painful, adventure….fun. From shooting pheasants for game to shooting lions for survival, Karen goes through many changes.
Another ideal that changed in Karen was of love. Dennis was a man that she not only looked up to as a working man, but she began to be fond of him in a way that we had not seen her be with a man. She sheds her materialistic view on the world and begins to allow herself to be aware of the way she feels. What I found so beautiful about the film was Karen’s transition and sort of awakening as a free spirit, drifting in a world of misconceptions and false relationships, and settling into her own powers as a thinking, acting, human being. She develops a close relationship with Africa and wonders whether the country is fond of her the way that she is fond of it. Her life there opened her eyes to a way of life that she believes in and taught her many things about the world and herself.

Out of Africa Analysis

Baroness Karen von Blixen (the Danish author that initially wrote the book entitled Out of Africa which details her experience there) is the central figure in the film Out of Africa, and the movie is primarily based on her life in the east African region of Nairobi Kenya as the owner a coffee farm. Throughout the film, Blixen’s attempts to fully eradicate her colonialist European mindset engrained in her are mostly successful, however slight clues throughout the film imply that she never fully embraces the culture or its people without an aura of European superiority.

I do believe that Karen Blixen’s actions are intended to be quite compassionate and genuine. She is actively involved with all of the people of Nairobi that live on her farm. She sets up English lessons to be taught to adults and Children in the evenings (even though this action could also be seen as egocentric, implying that the English language is more valuable than Swahili or other local dialects of the region) and provides medical care to anyone in need of it each morning. She even establishes close bonds with some of her neighbors. She treats a young Kikuyu boy named Kamante and establishes a relationship with him, ultimately making him her chef and teaches him how to cook traditional European dishes. Blixen also forms a friendship with one of her servants by the name of Farah. These actions suggest that she is immersing herself with her Nairobi neighbors and treating them very humanely (something not seen at all in the African slave trade). Yet both of the relationships that I addressed exemplify the power and superiority that remains in her and the subtle devaluing of the culture that originally inhabited that land.

Blixen’s enormous, lavish house serves as a constant reminder to the viewer of her wealth and privilege. Yes, she helps the native people of Nairobi often, but her indirect actions also make it clear that her way of living is drastically better than that of her neighbors.

Out of Africa by Sydney Pollack

Sydney Pollack’s production of Out of Africa, based on the book and life of Karen Blixen is one of both awe and limited perspective. Starting off the story in Denmark in 1914, the main character Karen von-Blixen Finecke is a stereotypical white baroness who cannot seem to find a place in her society as a woman and dreams of the exotic. By moving to a farm in Kenya, which later becomes a coffee plantation, she believes she is taking herself away from the troubles of European society and entering a place of wonder and paradise where she can live peacefully with nature. This, I believe is one of the big ways that the movie stopped short in portraying an accurate view of Kenya. Although there was much war and conflict in Kenya within the movie, the plot does not include a lot of realistic views of how the war affected the characters in the movie, giving the setting a sense of serene war which was obviously not true. The viewer sees little or no signs of any kind of conflict that affected either the Europeans or the people native to the land. Although war is spoken of and the viewer is shown the camp base where Karen’s husband is, there is no actual fighting occurring. Throughout the movie Karen encounters almost exclusively stereotypical pieces of Africa including topless women, wild lions, tribal chiefs, white safari guides, rich white Europeans and vast plains of “the wild.” Although the animals shown in the movie were native to the area Karen lived, the film gives an extremely limited view of Africa as a whole. For example when Denys Finch-Hatton takes her on the plane ride over vast plains filled with animals and views untouched by humans, the viewer is shown the classic National Geographic image of Africa. The movie also portrays the tribe who work for Karen and who live on “her land” as in need of the whites for work and education; throughout the movie Karen slowly understands that the tribe has their own way of life and does not need European education. This image of the functional independent tribe however is turned around when the coffee plantation burns down and Karen’s paradise world falls apart the tribe’s livelihood burns down with it, enhancing a sense of the dependence on whites. Further, at the end of the movie Karen is begging for the white man’s help in order for the tribe to have land to live on. The movie as a whole focuses on the perspective of Karen, the talented story-teller and gives the limited view of those native to Kenya, showing only how the natives interact with Europeans rather than an accurate portrayal of life in Africa.

"My Africa" - From Memoir to Film

Karen Blixen (1885-1962) was a Danish writer under the name Isak Dinesen, famous for her memoir Out of Africa. From 1914 to 1931, Karen Blixen lived in East Africa, Kenya, on a coffee plantation. In 1985, Sydney Pollack produced the film Out of Africa, depicting the memoirs of Karen Blixen's life in Africa. As the movie is an adaptation and a depiction of the baroness's life, it also reveals Blixen's perception of Africa, an Africa she created for her own intellectual elation. Pollack's use of symbols, dialogue, and cinematographic techniques portrays Karen Blixen's perception of Africa physically and metaphorically.

The physical elements of Africa that are prominent in the film are the landscapes. Pollack and cinematographer David Watkin use aerial shots and panning to show the depth and expanse of the African land. These images of lush, green jungles, dry, blue-skied deserts, and wild animals portray Africa as a vast, untouched place, (as one will still find in National Geographic). Karen Blixen's perception of Africa is exotic, allowing her to free herself from being a "mental traveler". The greatest image viewers have of Africa in the movie is the scene when Meryl Streep's Karen is swept across Africa in an airplane with her lover Denys (Robert Redford). This scene emphasizes Africa as a place of wonder and mystery, the Africa Karen Blixen lived in.

Pollack's use of symbols throughout the film also lead viewers to understanding Karen Blixen's idea of Africa. One symbol is the compass Meryl Streep's Karen receives from Denys. The compass is a symbol of guidance and security, guiding Karen on her small ventures while also protecting her from the mysteries and dangerous terrain of Africa.

The dialogue in Out of Africa also serves as an image, impelling viewers into seeing the Africa depicted in the movie as Karen Blixen's Africa. Blixen refers to "my farm...my Kikuus...my Africa," subtle expressions that what we see on the screen is not a real picture of Africa, but the image Blixen has created in her memoir, in her mind.

These metaphorical and physical images of Africa ensure that Sydney Pollack was not trying to manipulate or exploit Africa, but to further illustrate Africa as a place that was once, and still is (1985) an alluring and boundless place.

Purpose of the map, "Guinea" by Joan Blaeu

Although many may be fooled by the artistic, romantic design, the map, “Guinea” by Joan Blaeu is no more than an instrument of European interests and discovery. The use of colorful images is distracting; however these are just symbols of exoticism and imperialism directed towards European audiences. The contrast of the colorful images and the names of places and physical geography presented on the map show that the map was intended more to entice other Europeans and encourage the prospect of the western coast of Africa and the mystery of it all.
The colorful images of animals, ships, people and emblems all represent different elements that appeal to Europe of 1662, when the map was created. The animals satisfy the hunger for the bizarre, unusual image that typically is sought when foreign regions are involved. An example of the absurdity of using these creatures to represent Africa is the use of elephants in the area labeled only Malagveta, which is presented in the area now containing Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Sierra Leone and Cote d’Ivoire. The use of living elephants here is a ridiculous concept because representation of them in a region of Africa that does not hold a remarkable elephant population is impractical. Elephant population is dominant in the south and eastern areas of the continent and thus makes depicting them walking around in the west to be unrealistic, however this map is not prized for its realistic qualities. The reason this is done is to excite the intended audience about the west coast of Africa with the idea of the strange, interesting creatures that reside there. The other reason for showing elephants in this area was to symbolize the ivory trade. The western coast of Africa was and is still called the Ivory Coast. It is known for the trade of elephant tusks and using the image of large elephants and not to mention the elephant tusk handled by two African children at the bottom. The ambitious images of the ships throughout the waters surrounding the coast also show how this map is used as symbol of European imperialism. During the 1600s, all of Europe was going through an economic and political transition. More of the world was being discovered and with that came the European demand for the resources these new places could provide. A strategy developed throughout Europe was to find areas of the world that were deemed inferior and had goods that the people wanted and take over both economically and politically. This map was actually created in the interests of the Dutch East India Company and Joan Blaeu was a supporter of Dutch colonial interests throughout the world as shown through exaggerated size of the trade ships in the map and the other images used. The decorative emblem in the middle at the bottom presenting the word “Gvinea” shows an elaborate gold crest and beautification that signifies European influence. The crest can also be taken to stand for European approval which can also add to the attraction of this area of Africa. The imagery used in this map is incredibly important and shows clearly how Europe viewed this foreign land and saw it as a place to take over and benefit economically from.

"Guinea" by Joan Blaeu: 17th Century Map of Western Coast of Africa

When first looking at this map of the Western Coast of Africa, the viewer is struck by the precision and decoration. Upon close examination, it becomes apparent that the map not only serves a functional guide to West African geography, but also acts as propaganda—enticing Dutch traders to explore the wealthy coast.

This map, titled “Guinea” was created in 1662 by Joan Blaeu, the chief cartographer for the Dutch East India Company (VOC). The VOC was a joint stock company that established ports all over Asia and Africa, and was a dominant trader in Asia and Africa in the 17^th century. Because Blaeu constructed his maps with the intentions of selling them to wealthy patrons, he wanted to make them appealing and desirable to consumers. This explains why the map is not only incredibly accurate, but also includes excellent topography, bold color and other decorative features.

The most striking feature of the map is the thin, precise lines. Though the border lines of the interior of Western Africa are also fairly accurate, the detail of the coast is exceptional. It seems that every inlet, small peninsula, and island is marked. Though the writing is too small to be deciphered, Blaeu looks to have marked various ports and rivers. The cartographer probably included so much detail on the coast because most of the coastline depicted in the map is “Slave Coast”, “The Gold Coast”, or “The Ivory Coast”—all large, lucrative trades. Blaeu’s intended audience (wealthy patrons and traders) would have been very concerned with these areas—which the map promises them lots of profits. They were probably less concerned with the interior of Western Africa, which is why there is much less detail in that area. For example, the borders between countries are crafted with much thicker ink and are therefore less precise. Also, the labeling is much more scarce on the interior than on the coastline.

Another very interesting feature of this 17^th century map is the detailed, colored illustrations. In West Central Africa, Blaeu includes African Elephants and in the bottom corners of the map he also includes lions, monkeys and leopards. The animals on the map seem to be engraved with just as much precision as the geographic features. At the center of the map are the African Elephants drawn on such a large scale that they almost dominate the map. At the bottom right corner of the map, there are Africans depicted holding a large elephant trunk. Though other animals are included in the image, they are pushed to the background and are seemingly less important. Blaeu probably emphasized and over exaggerated the presence of elephants in Western Africa in an attempt to excite his audience. By including such detail of the Cote D’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) and showing pictures of elephant trunks, the image would seem enticing to wealthy traders of the VOC.

Also illustrated on a larger-than-life scale are the European style ships, which are sailing about the coast. The ships are included in the image also to appeal to the audience—to inspire wealthy traders to embark on a voyage to the West African coast, where they could find many precious goods.

Not Quite Mapquest

This map of Africa was published in the early 18th century. I compared it to a modern-day map of Africa, and as far as the general shape of the continent, it is pretty spot on (excluding Madagascar). My argument is that when this map of Africa was published the general goal wasn’t to further exploit the continent, but to historically document the current knowledge of scholars. It was published by a man named John Harris. He was a man who published works reflecting his scientific and religious background.

This map is a mixture of physical and abstract mapping concepts. In the northern part of the map and a little in the south, the physical features are shown: the black lines are a representation of the desert and terrain. On the edges of the map though, the abstract lines are drawn. They show the political states of Egypt, Congo, and Nubia to name a few. As you can tell, the countries mapped are primarily on the edges of Africa. This is probably because of the slave trade. Why go deep into a place you don’t know, when you can find what you’re looking for on the edge? That and if you spent too much time in Africa as a slave trader, your lifespan was quickly shortened due to being exposed to diseases that your immune system couldn’t fight off.

Although slavery was still a big industry, I think the map is a step forward. By drawing the abstract lines, they’re acknowledging that the people living in Africa have their own countries, and that it’s not just a vacant place filled with goods.