Talk:Charles Atangana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Charles Atangana is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 15, 2007.
Article Milestones Date Process Result November 2, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 22, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents 1 older entries 2 Image 3 vandalism 4 FA status?

[edit] older entries

A nice and informative article! But I wonder, if he spent so much time with the Germans in his youth, did he still speak his native language in his later life? If he still did, he must have had quite some contact with his own people through the years, something the article isn't clear about. — mark ✎ 07:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, you might want to suggest a DYK item over at Template talk:Did you know. — mark ✎ 07:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

My sources didn't give any specific information about much time he spent with other Ewondo, but I would infer that he interacted more with his own people during the French administration than the German one. And his wife and children would have spoken Ewondo, as would the chiefs whom he mobilized, so I doubt he ever forgot the language. I plan to add something to DYK later today! BrianSmithson 11:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The Dictionary of African Christian Biography might be an interesting additonal source on Atangana's career from the perspective of the Catholic colonial priests, and adds a few new details such as his arrest by the French who sentenced him to hard labor at Dtschang upon their return to power in Douala after the war. I'm wondering if his supervision of road-construction gangs in Dtschang might have been while a prisoner there or following his release. - Mark Dixon 15:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that dictionary was used as a source. The work gang thing should be mentioned, for example, unless the article's been vandalized since then. — Brian (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

This is a better photo of him, but I can't establish when it was taken. He lived into the 1940s, so it's uncertain whether this photo is PD yet or not. There's also a nice statue of him in downtown Yaoundé, if anyone with a camera is headed that way. — BrianSmithson 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Cameroon-plus.com uses the image to illustrate its section on the history of German Colonial Cameroon, which dates it back far enough for it to be public domain. — BrianSmithson 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Some dick has vandalised this article, and I can't see how to remove it. Could somebody have a look please?

That photo doesn't even look real. That head doesn't look like it fits on the body. johnpseudo 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

vandalism is rampant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.162.43.63 (talk • contribs).

That should be the wiki's new motto. - BanyanTree 20:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA status?

Sorry to do this to a featured article, but in reading the summary on the front page, I was appalled at how this guy is treated as some sort of great person with no commentary whatsoever about how he may be regarded by his own countrymen/women. From what I gleaned from the text (on the cover page), he was little more than a lapdog, an obedient lacky of successive colonial authorities -- first German and then French. Where is the objectivity here? If there's another viewpoint in the article, it certainly isn't reflected in the article summary. This reads like a "great knee-grows in the service of white folks" in some European colonial-era textbook. Where is the non-European-skewed treatment of this piece? Where's the balance? WTH? deeceevoice 21:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously throwing a balance tag on this article based on its lead, without actually reading the article? The article makes it quite clear that his major role was "obedient lackey" to the colonial powers, so it seems a bit odd to criticize it for detailing his lackey-dom. Considering that this was considerably before anthropologists wandered around asking regular folks their opinions, the article seems be do well walking the fine line of having little but official sources with which to work, while avoiding their value judgments. - BanyanTree 21:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I would have to question the quality/structure of the article with regard to the content of its opening paragraphs, because they give no indication whatsoever that there is any controversy regarding this fellow. I skimmed several paragraphs of the article beyond that and found nothing. One shouldn't have to read much further for such important information. Read, by comparison, the opening paragraphs for the article on Jonas Savimbi. The piece needs some important work in that regard. And you will note that the "balance" tag may apply to the entire article or a section. And, clearly, the opening summary treatment of the article is bland/unbalanced in the manner I've so stated.

Finally, that was then, and this is now. Clearly, a man who kowtowed to colonial authorities is fair game for critical analysis and review today -- and it certainly reads to me like he was a sellout. deeceevoice 21:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Talking like someone who knows nothing of the era and the worldview of people living in another time, in another world. Look at Africa since colonialism. Improvement?Scott Adler 22:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't ASS-sume what I know. Your ridiculous comments barely warrant a response. deeceevoice 00:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So you think that he should be the target of critical analysis for his collaboration with colonial authorities, but make no statement that such analysis exists. This wiki article may be the single most comprehensive account of his life, so a comparison to the contemporary Savimbi simply does not hold up. If you can tell that you disagree with the subject's politics, and are not being told that your politics are wrong, then I fail to see the problem. You seem to be looking for an article that is stating "Charles Atangana was bad"; I am happy that the article concerns itself with "Charles Atangana was". That is the definition of a neutrally written article, unlike those articles where editors seem to think that readers are so feeble minded that they cannot make their own moral judgments on the basis of the information provided. - BanyanTree 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Target" is hardly the correct word here. "Critical analysis" speaks to analytical examination rather than bland reportage (which is what this article does) and is not about criticizing something, per se. It's what a learned article should do -- and this doesn't even come close. deeceevoice 16:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

... But it would be likely that such analysis exists, and should be included. Brutannica 22:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem that Deeceevoice is bringing up, if it is one, is a problem of the sources. The article leans heavily on Quinn, whom I assume is not a Cameroonian. His treatment of the subject is that Atangana's lackeydom was due to the fact that he knew he had to work within the colonial structure to affect change. Reading the article, this should be clear: He witnessed other leaders of his ethnic group revolt and be brutally crushed. He saw the Germans despoiling the land and people. So, he decided to accept what he saw as inevitable and "kowtow" to the outside invaders to work within the system to effect positive change. This is also mentioned in the article, how he prevented further German massacres and how he intervened on his subjects' behalf.

The other problem of sources is that this guy is an Ewondo. Paul Biya, the president of Cameroon for the past 20-some-odd years, is a Bulu, a closely related ethnic group. This means that Cameroonian scholarship and nationalism under Biya has lionized Atangana. They erected a statue of the guy and named a street after him in the capital.

So, in short, I contest that the article is not neutral; it draws from both European and Cameroonian sources, and it represents the only view of this guy that there is out there. He made the best of the situation life dealt him, using colonial powers both to enrich himself and to try to get the best treatment for his people under what he saw as a situation beyond his control. It might be worthwhile to compare Atangana's life to that of Rudolf Duala Manga Bell, his contemporary, who took a different approach to Cameroon-German relations. — Brian (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; my statements above make it sound like I'm supporting Quinn's and Assiga-Ahanda's interpretations uncritically, and I'm not. I find this guy's lackeydom repugnant, too. Rudolf Duala Manga Bell and Martin-Paul Samba are much more interesting people in my opinion. But I think the article is a neutral as it can be considering the sources available. If there's an anti-Atangana source out there, I'd love to see it and incorporate the author's criticisms. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case. So, in making the article "bland" and sticking to what Atangana did (that is, keeping this a straight biography), I've tried to remain as neutral as possible. The fact that Deeceevoice is getting the impression that he was a lackey (which is not an argument any of the sources makes) perhaps indicates that the neutrality is there. Deeceevoice is an editor I respect and admire, and if she has any suggestions for further improvements, I'm certainly open to them. — Brian (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Germans were brutal. Forced labor was brutal. The Germans massacred, wholesale, Bakweri tribespeople, after they managed to hand the Germans their asses, serving them their first military defeat in Africa -- in Cameroon. And this guy was translating for Africans "pressed into labor" (it sounds like a freakin' tea party, with no reference to the brutality of the whole thing) eating sauerkraut and sausage, aspiring to be like massuh. The French were no better, but this Steppinfetchit seved them both dutifully.

The article lacks balance -- which is precisely what the tag says. It should never have been a featured article in the first place. The lead paragraphs (indeed, seemingly the entire article) are written wholly from the perspective of a European (read white folks), and that's what people saw on the front page. Lead paragraphs should be an introductory overview of the subject to be presented. And the lead makes this guy sound like the guy the lawn jockeys immortalize -- freezing to death, but still a-holdin' that lamp for ole massuh, talking about how "loyal" he was -- with no countervailing perspective whatsoever -- like that's a good thing. And for a project that purports to be global in scope, that sux/is unforgivable.

Unless and until there is information provided from another perspective -- and you can bet that information exists -- then, while it is an interesting enough piece on an, IMO, thoroughly tragic and despicable character, who was by all accounts a (likely self-loathing) collaborator with colonial authorities who enslaved his countrymen, stole their land and slaughtered many of them, the article has a huge, honking gaping hole that needs filling.

Am I to understand that people are arguing that because appropriate, countervailing information/sources aren't available (or known) to be used in filling that hole, then somehow the article suddenly becomes a quality one, worthy of featured article status by default? WTF? I don't think so!

In fact, the article should be stripped of its featured article status for the reasons I've cited. The article clearly doesn't merit FA status -- and, personally, I find such bland, uncritical, Eurocentric treatment of topics dealing with Africa (like the Scramble for Africa piece before I discovered it and complained) incalculably offensive. deeceevoice 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As an outside editor, I will say it is pretty difficult to ascribe motives to a person when you have no relevent sources. I well understand Deeceevoice's concerns though. The article certainly give no indication as to the brutality of the regimes concerned. The nature of the colonial regimes could be spelt out, and Atangana could also be contrasted to Manga Bell and others. We would then have a clearer understanding of the effects of his actions and the choices open to him. As for the articles featured status, I have no comment as I really have no involvement in either the article or the featured article status. I was actually watching the article because I was interested in the level of vandalism main page featured articles attract. However there are mechanisms to have featured status reviewed, and Deeceevoice certainly puts up a good case. --Michael Johnson 01:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If your argument is that more context needs to be given to showcase the brutality of the German regime (and I'm certainly not disputing that it was inhumane and brutal), then such details can easily be added, and probably should. (Incidentally, "pressed into labour" hardly sounds like a tea party to me . . . ) I'm not sure where you're going with the Bakweri stuff; most of the ethnic groups the Germans encountered in Cameroon resisted the invaders, at least at first. In fact, this very article mentions that Atangana's own Ewondo were among those who did resist.

The article describes the life of Charles Atangana with no judgments on it one way or the other. You seem to be arguing that because the article doesn't flat out say that Atangana was a lackey that it is somehow unbalanced. But it doesn't say he was a great man, either. It gives a biography of what he did in his life and leaves the judgments up to the reader. You have judged him a Steppinfetchit; others may judge him as someone who worked within a system against which he did not think he could prevail. Why should the article take one view over the other?

Like I said, I have no problem adding more context regarding German brutality and contrasting Atangana's life with people in similar positions, such as Manga Bell and Samba. Would that at least partially address the problems you see, Deecee? — Brian (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the brutality of the French, as well, since it didn't seem to matter to this guy whose butt he kissed as long as it was European. Hell, it's one thing to make a deal with the Devil because you're in Hell. It's another thing entirely to say: "To dare to approach the Germans it is necessary to abandon the traits which displease them, to become their friend and then be valued by them." If that's not being a "lacky running dog," as Maoists were fond of saying, then nothing is. Another thing entirely to abandon one's culture, turn into a suck-up, whiteman wannabe, object to and suppress syncretic religious practices and expressions of indigenous culture, build a freaking castle and form a 20-piece orchestra. There is fine line that must be walked in such situations for collaborators seeking to mitigate the harshness of colonial rule, and also when that line is crossed into the simpering self-loathing and obsequiousness of a sellout seeking to line his own pockets. It would appear to me that this guy was a combination of the two.

And I cited the Bakweri not because they were the only tribe/nation to oppose the colonial authorities. The Germans all but obliterated the Bakweri, who humiliated them in battle, going after them with a particular zealous brutality and venom.

Did I say the article should call him a Steppinfetchit? Did I say the article should "take one view over the other"? Brian, please don't insult the editors' intelligence here by putting words in my mouth. It seems I must repeat myself: The article is lacking on some very important points. I've stated my objections, and Michael Johnson's comments would seem to be a good place to start. It would seem to be that a more critical analysis of this fellow would be readily available in the works of a historian/scholar from Francophone Africa -- unfortunately, and obviously, not a strong area for contributors to this project. I'm also thinking the works of C.L.R. James, a former professor of mine, may have treated this guy (though I don't recall). I recall James had some very vivid and insightful comments about Houphuet Boigny (Côte d'Ivoire), so I wouldn't be surprised. I don't have the time to investigate, though.... (I just did a quick search online for a CLRJ bibliography, but didn't come up with anything immediately -- though I'm sure one is there.) Perhaps someone else does. I've got deadlines and a Sudan divestment campaign to deal with. Peace. deeceevoice 12:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, your argument boils down to you think the guy was scum and want to the article say so. To do so you want someone to find critical analysis that reflect your thinking, ignoring the fact that the chief writer of the article has already stated that he knows of no such source. Adding such opinion without a credible source would, of course, be in violation of multiple core policies. Stating that a source should exist and that the article fails the FA criteria because it does not detail this hypothetical source, which nobody has identified, is simply unsupportable. Brian has offered above to add more context based on sources that he has on hand and you have failed to respond to his offer, choosing instead to express your feelings about colonialism as a whole and added nothing specific about the subject of this biography. I have removed the balance tag. Good luck with the campaign. - BanyanTree 18:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresenting my position doesn't enhance yours one whit, BT. And I have responded. Read my comments again. I've reinserted the tag. The article lacks balance. deeceevoice 19:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. You feel that the guy was part-scum and want the part-scum story.

Now which of these is misrepresented: the part where you want the article to state a value judgment not supported by references, or the part where you have not actually responded to the proposed edits to address your concerns? - BanyanTree 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's all about basic reading comprehension -- isn't it, BT?

From the talk page:

• "It seems I must repeat myself: The article is lacking on some very important points. I've stated my objections, and Michael Johnson's comments would seem to be a good place to start." Guess you didn't you see that, huh? All Brian did was essentiallly reiterate Johnson's suggestions. Did you even bother to read Johnson's remarks? Or, would you simply prefer to single me out and continue to misrepresent my position?
• In response to your comment about making Atangana a "target of critical analysis": "'Target' is hardly the correct word here. 'Critical analysis' speaks to analytical examination rather than bland reportage (which is what this article does) and is not about criticizing something, per se. It's what a learned article should do -- and this doesn't even come close."
• "It would seem to be that a more critical analysis of this fellow would be readily available in the works of a historian/scholar from Francophone Africa -- unfortunately, and obviously, not a strong area for contributors to this project." Nowhere have I suggested the unreferenced insertion of material of any sort about anything in this piece. Try again. deeceevoice 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(A lengthy pause, and nothing but silence from BT.) deeceevoice 11:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I'm working on it. I've found a few additional tidbits of info, some of which goes at least partially toward addressing Deeceevoice's concerns. I'm busy in real life at the moment, but I promise to focus my efforts here until some revisions have been made. — Brian (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. :) deeceevoice 11:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)