posts 16 - 22 of 22
wonderwoman
boston
Posts: 13
  • Firstly, this question seems ridiculous. No justification exists for any power holding colonial control over another nation. In class, we have read accounts of colonists that defend their actions by calling the native people of Africa savages or the common reasoning we hear for most cultural genocide that “ they needed to be saved and educated”. King Leopold chose to colonize the Congo for his own little excitement, it was a power trip for him as the book states that he had little power back home. Disgusting. Then once he realized the abundance of resources he exploited the natives and stole their resources. Ms. Freeman shared with us how the map of Africa lay on the table at the meeting little by little European powers began to chip away at the continent. How can that ever be justified? That land was never up for the taking.

  • There are zero benefits to colonization except for the abusers and colonizers themselves. Of course, the colonizers get free labor, people to enslave, exploited resources, land, and “power” or a chance to prove their superiority. There are not any benefits to your land being stolen and your people being massacred. The colonized nations are often left economically devastated as they are drained of their natural resources and ability to profit off of their land. I think saying that colonialism “can be helpful” is so ignorant and carries ideas of white/western supremacy. I guarantee that no “advantage” is worth losing your people and land.

  • I believe that what is described in King Leopold’s Ghost is the perils and extremes but it is also sadly the norm for every nation that has been colonized it is just not talked about enough. As I was reading Hochschild’s book I was shocked at the brutal images being described, but the more I read the more connections that I made with how Americans treated Indigenous people or how other groups treated those who they believed to be superior to. King Leopold first cut the country out of all its economy- business and profit. One specific example was he cut off the people of Konga from one of their resources, the elephant, and he forbid any people of Konga to sell Ivory. This reminded me of how the U.S. colonizers killed all of the buffalo to starve and remove the Native Americans’ most useful resource. The language used to describe Kongolese people were similar to many other native people, King Leopard used the term “lazy native” to justify the enslavement of an entire nation. Lastly, in every nation that was colonized, there is a massacre of people; King Leopold did this in many ways. By creating a quota of 4 kilos of dried rubber which was nearly impossible to reach, selling men and women to Chiefs intended for food, or forcing young children aged 7-9 to carry 20 pounds of work. The Congo was not the exception, all native people have been treated with similar cruelty.

  • I believe that the colonization of Africa had devastating effects on the continent as a whole. Almost every single country in Africa was colonized. This means that the majority of the population faced cultural and actual genocide by White men. They had many years and resources stolen from them, so how can they ever fully recover to the point of their once colonizers? I also think there is a mental effect the largest one being obviously racism. I think many European countries are still very racist and have chosen not to acknowledge their racist history. Then also the mental health effects for older generations that had to live through these hardships and the younger ones for still having to deal with the generational trauma. There also must have been a forced culture switch in Africa as they were dragged into forced globalization. I think that the colonizing nation should have a large amount of responsibility over the colonized nations. These colonizers used them when they were helpful and then left them on their own as they struggled. The nations of Africa deserve reparations for what was done to their countries and ancestors.

Answer to Coffee and Pie: Some similarity in our behavior between us currently and during the colonial period is that there is still a need to be "the best". A superior race, superior country, the most weaponized, the strongest. It was this mindset that lead colonizers to take over land and claim it as their own. Scary actually especially with the current right winged part of politics.

My Question: What exactly are reparations? Will any ever be sufficient enough? Can colonizing countries ever make up for the damage they caused in the past?

travelalarmclock
Posts: 12

There is no possible justification for colonial control over any nation. A common excuse used by colonizing nations is to “civilize” the peoples of a colonized nation, as if the colonizers were doing a favor and had an obligation to imperialize. This is not an acceptable reason to colonize at all. It is just flawed logic so that the colonizers can continue to exploit land, resources, and people. In most cases of colonization, it is driven by economic motives and usually the pre-existing people living on the land that is colonized are subjected to horrible treatment. Sometimes colonizers can provide protection and support to colonized nations, but this is still not viable justification for completely taking over another nation, controlling entire populations of people living peacefully before the arrival of colonizers.

Most of the benefits of colonialism go to the colonialist nation in charge. There are minimal benefits for the colonized nation. Most of the time, the colonialist power gets to expand its territory, access to more resources and a new “labor force” to exploit. Often the colonized nation gets little to nothing from this “arrangement”. The benefits they do get are usually also shared by the colonizers, and more times than not, the harms outweigh the benefits. Sometimes, colonization allows for the spread of Western medicine, education and infrastructure. But this is nothing compared to the decimation of the native population living on the land that is colonized, nothing compared to the labor and abuse they had to undergo.

To King Leopold, everything on the Congo was his. He had absolute power and controlled everything. The most disturbing of the extremes, perils or norms of colonialism described in Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost was how the Congolese were treated. He controlled who they could sell goods like ivory to, which of course, was only limited to him. The labor he forced on these people caused countless deaths, all for his own gain and to monopolize on resources like rubber. We talked about the sap rubber comes from in class, and I also read about it in this book. The work needed to collect the sap is extremely painful and hard work. In class, we talked about how usually protective gear is needed for this kind of work. However, the Congolese did not have this luxury. The sap often would stick to the skin and it would be very painful to pull it off, often pulling off the skin with it. This was not something many were eager to carry out, so Leopold had the women held hostage to force the men to go out and get the sap. The women held hostage also experience absolute atrocities and violations of their bodies. Just reading about all of this horrifies me. Forced labor like this is unfortunately the norm when it comes to colonizing an “inferior” nation. However, the extremities Leopold goes to to punish the people of the Congo is appalling, and likely far beyond the norm of colonialism. His soldiers would open fire on a village that refused to collect rubber to “send a message”. Furthermore, if the quota for rubber was not met, the villagers’ hands would be cut off. Not only that, but there were extremely inhumane and harsh punishments. One incident was described where all the servant boys in a town were flogged fifty times because a few children laughed in the presence of a white man. Some were also killed for scientific research. The fact that the officials think that they are doing some kind of good while carrying out such horrific actions makes me absolutely sick. In one report, Fievez, a state official, claimed that his goal was “humanitarian” since he killed 100 people to save 500. He admits to murdering masses of people, yet still twists his words to justify himself. It is disgusting and this kind of behavior encapsulates the very worst of colonialism. The cannibalism mentioned at the end of the given excerpt also is definitely indicative of at least the extremes of colonialism. It was said, that the canned beef found in white men’s houses would have chopped up hands inside, which of itself is absolutely devastating. Even if this isn’t factual, cutting off people’s hands and heads was just a game to the soldiers in the Congo. The perils of colonialism are more than evident in this reading, and if it was hard to read, I can’t even begin to imagine actually going through all that treatment.

In both short term and long term effects, the colonization of Africa definitely slowed the development of the countries. There were so many resources and human lives taken from them, and the damage done to the economy must have been immense. The colonization also changed the way they express themselves and their culture because often times African peoples under colonization are forced to assimilate to the culture of whoever is colonizing them, often Western culture. This forces them to lose parts of their cultural identity, as they can’t fully embrace it while being under the control of another nation. I think, after colonization ends, the colonizing nations should take responsibility, as they do have a responsibility for the damage done to their former colonial subjects. They should, at the very least, repay them so that they can start to rebuild and recover. However, this is not always the case, and colonizing nations sometimes refuse to take responsibility for their actions. The question posed by wonderwoman relates to this.

“What exactly are reparations? Will any ever be sufficient enough? Can colonizing countries ever make up for the damage they caused in the past?” Reparations are a way of making up for wrongdoings. In the case of African colonization, I don’t think they will ever be sufficient enough. I think that the damage done is irreversible and irreparable. But this does not mean that they shouldn’t try to make up for the damage caused in the past. I think formerly colonized countries deserve at the very least some kind of financial reparation.

My question is, why do you think Leopold was so brutal in his methods and so tyrannical in his rule? Do you think it was tied to the fact that he had such little power back home in Belgium?

stuckyducky
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 10
  1. I do not think that there is any possible justification for colonial control over a nation. I think that many cases of colonization involve greed and exploitation, without any regard for the people that already live there. It hurts so many people at the greed of a couple powerful people in charge and thus I don’t think it can be justified.
  2. There are definitely benefits to colonialism for the colonialist nations. Colonialist nations are able to basically drain the colonized nation of their resources without a second thought and become rich off of it while the colonized nation is left to struggle, even in the long term. It is a way for the colonialist nations to take power and to almost guarantee their power. For example, in Haiti, there is a huge deforestation problem that is ongoing today due to the deforestation that occured during the colonial period. This deforestation problem has caused many environmental issues for Haiti, such as threats to biodiversity. The relationship between the colonialist nation and the colonized nation is extremely parasitic. However, in some cases, the colonized nation can get some benefit. Many religions and cultural aspects are enjoyed by many nations as a result of colonization. For example, the Santeria religion originated from Roman Catholicism, Yoruba religion, and spiritism.
  3. I think that in the reading, the events that are described are an unfortunate norm for colonialism but still very extreme and perilous. Meaning that the work that the native people were forced to do and the punishments were extreme, but it does have parallels to other stories of colonization in other countries. In class and in the reading, we discussed the horrors of tapping rubber and the punishments that happened. However, what jumped out to me the most was how everyone but one man was so desensitized to the violence. Because of how commonplace the violence was, people distanced themselves from the violence and as a result, didn’t speak out against it often. I think that since people became so desensitized, it also just gave Belgium the excuse that they could keep perpetuating violence since no one was speaking out.
  4. The colonization of Africa has caused many negative long term effects in African countries. In class, I remember that we talked about how in Rwanda, it takes an extremely long time to get from one side of the country to the other, despite being the size of New Jersey, because of the lack of infrastructure. This is just one example of how colonization has prevented these countries from being able to modernize, as they are still stuck in trying to repair what had been destroyed, metaphorically, during the times of colonization. These countries cannot develop and as a result, they are not able to be strong world powers. They are barely on the radar of many Americans, as evident from the quiz we had during class. I think that colonizing nations should actively acknowledge the damage they had done during that time. For example, Germany only apologized in 2004 for what they did in Namibia, but it shouldn’t stop there. The majority of people don’t even know that these genocides happened, and that is due to a lack of accountability for what happened. These colonizing countries need to face their history and also aid these countries as some sort of payment for what they had done.

In response to the question: What exactly are reparations? Will any ever be sufficient enough? Can colonizing countries ever make up for the damage they caused in the past?

Reparations, in this context, is countries making amends to other countries for what they did in the past. I think that it would be extremely difficult to give reparations that would get the colonized countries on the track to what they should’ve had before colonization. Honestly I don’t even think that colonizing countries would do that since it would cost a ton of resources.


My question: Do you think that people will eventually learn about the colonization of Africa and the genocides that happened?

Mylienta
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 14

“The Conquest of the Earth…..is not a pretty thing”: Colonizing the Kongo

  1. Are there benefits to colonialism? What does the colonialist nation in charge get from the “arrangement”? What does the colonized nation get from the arrangement?
    1. The benefits of colonialism is probably learning about new cultures. With colonialism the most important and beneficial thing that is received is the spread of cultures and even then it doesn't sound right to say because most of the time those cultures were forced onto the colonized
    2. The only people that benefit from colonization is the colonizers. They get money, resources, power, recognition, and even forgiveness but the colonized are left to rebuild the country that the colonizers tore apart and get blamed for the state of their country as if Rome was built in a day.
  2. And is what is described in the reading from Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost indicative of the extremes of colonialism, the perils of colonialism, or the norm? (The more you are detailed here in your response, the more it’s clear that you got something meaningful out of this reading.)
    1. It is very indicative of the extremes of colonialism because nothing seemed to be sugarcoated. I say 'seemed' because you can never tell something is sugarcoated unless you found more information deepening your understanding of what really took place. The author included quotes to provide emphasis on how the colonizers really felt about the natives of the land that they were embarking on. One of the quotes was "to begin with, of course, was race. To Europeans, Africans were inferior beings: lazy, uncivilized, little better than animals. In fact, the most common way they were put to work was like animals, as beats of burden" (pg 121). Hochschild's interpretation of why was brutal but was straight to the point. There was nothing before or after it that decreased the extremities of the reality about why they thought colonization was the best route. The more I read the worse it gets. I found this quote by a station chief Georges Briscusse writing about the hanging of someone who stole a riffle. He descriptively wrote about how the hung a black man described the sound of his neck cracking due to the weight of his won body and even shot him at the back of his neck and said "It didn't make the least impression on me this time!!And to think that the first time I saw the chicotte administered, I was pale with fright. Africa has some use after all. I could now walk into fire as if to a wedding". He ignored the fact that he "was pale with fright" he should've knew from then that these actions that they were committing were barbaric, cruel, evil, there just aren't enough words to describe the cruelty. Again he said "Africa has some use after all. I could now walk into fire as if to a wedding" He compared a man being hung to going to a wedding and claimed that the only use Africa had was the thicker skin he gained being exposed to atrocities. There are so many quotes that I can pull out and describe here but imagine all the brutalities that happened that weren't recorded. To me the extremes are the norms. these barbaric acts were so common that they became the norm.
  3. Finally, the broadest questions: In your view, what short- and long-term effects did the colonization of Africa have on the development of nations on the continent and their status today? And what responsibility, if any, do the colonizing nations have for their former colonial subjects and the nations that emerged after colonialism ended?
    1. I will start off with the Scramble of Africa. These European and Asian superpowers sat around the table and divided Africa claiming land that they deemed their own. They didn't care for the original inhabiters and how they felt, they just took. Originally Africa had tribes, although that word now has a bad connotation to it, we had tribal nations. Not all of these tribes got along so imagine being confined into land with other groups of people you don't favor. There will never be peace they will always fight. For example the Fulani's they were known to travel that why they are found in so many different African countries. They weren't used to being confined to land I would be angry too. In Nigeria there are hundreds of languages and tribes within the country 2 major ones being the Fulani and the Igbos. There is always fighting going on between both tribes. The Fulani people aren't native to the land but take up most of the governmental officials while the igbo people who are rarely in government positions or even attempt to try, except Peter Obi he's running for president, to be part of the government. With corruption, inflation, cruelty etc. going on the country seems to be doing poorly and the main, not only, reason is due to colonialism and Nigeria is only 62 years only compared to other major countries who are hundreds of years old and had so many advantages
    2. Next is Ethiopia. The Italians attempted to colonize them but they fought back hard and they won. Ethiopia along with Libera, for other reasons, are the only 2 African countries that weren't colonized. Trade is a big part of success in any nation, Ethiopia and Liberia were surrounded by countries who were colonized and after the fact these countries needed time to rebuild. Overtime their situation got worse so yes these countries may not have been colonized but felt the repercussions from those neighboring countries.
    3. Lastly there is encouraged corruption. Western countries are known to place people in power to further destroy African countries and kill anyone who wants to better the country. We have seen this happen so many times and it is to gain the resources without giving the country what it is worth. They purposefully lower the expectations of what is to be earned and gain so much money out of exploitation.
  4. What possible justification can there be for colonial control over any nation?
    1. There is no justification for the colonial control over any nation. The USA believes that our job is to 'save' those who don't live life the way we do. Not everyone wants to live in a country where the default color is gray, the government constantly proves itself to have strains of dictatorship claiming to be democratic, and feeding their people dangerous chemicals. I completely understand the point of having a moral compass but overstepping should never be warranted for. The only reason they get involved is if its beneficial to them. Yes, these countries can step in when asked but full on taking over the country claiming that it is for the best is selfish.
    2. Any justification of Colonial control can't be said without having an entitled undertone. "In that sense, he treated both vacant and non vacant land as his property claiming all rights to all its products" this is one of the most entitled quotes from the excerpt King Leopold felt that he was deserving of land that did not belong to him.
ilovefroyo
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 13

Response

1. What possible justification can there be for colonial control over any nation?

In my opinion, like my classmates, there was no and is no justification for colonization. However, these European powers believed that their efforts were simply to spread Christianity, economic and agricultural endeavors, or simply racism. These European powers, such as France, Germany, Britain, and more, used their various justifications to practically make themselves feel better for ruling and enslaving countries of Asia and Africa. Their main goal was to prove their superiority. To them, anyone outside of their religion or of a darker skin tone was inferior. The larger European countries also used their colonies for agriculture and trading if their country lacked a certain resource to therefore build up their economy. Colonization is a ‘solution’ in the eyes of white men to countries that have several areas lacking. Such as resources, general economic issues, or that the colonizing country feels the need to be a savior.

2. Are there benefits to colonialism? What does the colonialist nation in charge get from the “arrangement”? What does the colonized nation get from the arrangement?

To be completely honest, in most situations the colonized nation gets very little out of the arrangement. In specific situations, like the colonization from the US to the Philippines, it seemed like the US was a savior from the Spanish colonization but given that they really replaced the Spanish, they never actually helped the country in any way. The US ultimately used the Philippines as a passage to a few of the islands that the Japanese had colonized as we learned in history class (as well as a few outside resources). In other areas, such as the Congo, the people were completely abused and extorted while Belgium benefited from the rubber tire sales as the need for them grew. Typically, through the agreement, the colonialist nation would get wealth, resources that become wealth, or land for their own production areas while the colonized nation would have things taken away. Often, the colonized nation becomes enslaved as we have seen time and time again.


3. And is what is described in the reading from Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost indicative of the extremes of colonialism, the perils of colonialism, or the norm? (The more you are detailed here in your response, the more it’s clear that you got something meaningful out of this reading.)

The historical story of King Leopold II of Belgium's colonization of the Congo and the crimes committed between 1885 and 1908 is found in Adam Hochschild's book King Leopold's Ghost. The author describes some of the horrific events that happened during colonialism in the Congo. When learning about the Congo and the events that took place, I always felt that cutting the civilian arms off due to not meeting the quota like many was extreme. However, this was also a norm to be extremely cruel to subjects. Even Leopold himself, unlike many other rulers that we have studied, was cruel to his subjects. He forced the acting officers to get low prices ivory by threatening them at gunpoint. Generally speaking, he took more for himself which left him with little to pay his officers who were working in the Congo who had to be traumatized by their own jobs. He also sent them constant threats to keep them in line and ultimately instill fear in the officers as he did to the colonized people. The perils however were the consequences decades later. People were looking for Belgium’s apology. Although their apology came much later as of June 8th, 2022, many including myself believe it’s simply not enough. The Congo deserved better as far as reparations.


4. Finally, the broadest questions: In your view, what short- and long-term effects did the colonization of Africa have on the development of nations on the continent and their status today? And what responsibility, if any, do the colonizing nations have for their former colonial subjects and the nations that emerged after colonialism ended?

Many nations in Africa today are still struggling, yet (some) European nations that inhibited their own industrialization have yet to say any statement to apologize for colonization, also known as one of the easiest things they can do. African nations were exploited and still are, and have been dealing with water issues, poverty, and a general lack of infrastructure. As mentioned in class, many nations do not have advanced technology to build roads, evolve their nations, or even get power in their homes. Even still, looking at a cultural sense, languages and traditions have been lost from being oppressed over the years. I suggest a monetary agreement where colonialist nations can pay for certain aspects of the country or help in areas that are lacking. More specifically, I think that Belgium should do a lot more than a formal apology, instead, they should pay for resources for the country since they took so much from them (this is just an example but I do believe that Belgium should do more in general for all the generational trauma they caused).


5. My question + answering someone else’ question

In the case that colonialist nations should give reparations I pose two questions.

  1. Should there be any compensation for Black Americans + African-Americans from slavery?
  2. Would there be any exceptions to giving reparations? Example: if country a colonized country b, yet country b is more well off than country a, should country a still pay reparations?


Answering: I have is how are reparations quantified when understanding the consequences of generations of trauma and abuse as seen by the scramble for Africa by European powers?


I don’t think the best way to give reparations is to give a quantified amount of money but I think a better way would be to make an agreement with the colonized country for constant help to in theory cover the damage to the land, the people who were affected, and the generations going forward. Harm cannot be monetarily measured.

WindWanderer
Posts: 11

Colonizing the Kongo

1. I do not think that there is any justification to colonial control over a nation. An excuse we hear very frequently in cases of colonization, especially that of European colonization, is that a group of people is lesser than them. It was popular belief it was the "White Man's burden" to colonize other countries and to bring to them a "proper" sense of things such as education, religion, and governmental practices. It was described- or at least advertised- as if it were a good thing. As if they were bringing civilization and order to lands full of uncivilized, savage, discordant people. However, we now know that none of this was ever true of those that were colonized. We now know that all colonization did was hurt nations and people. Imperialism in Africa divided up so many tribes, mixing up cultures and languages everywhere, and dividing up nations such as the Somaliland. Colonization has only ever served to eliminate cultures and practices that were deemed to be strange and unnatural, transforming their lives to fit the Western standard. It has only brought people pain and trauma. There is no justification for that.

2. Most benefits of colonialism are to the colonizer. They can get free labor, access to new and plentiful resources, which could bring to them even more plentiful profits. As we've seen, these things can be taken to the extreme, especially in reference to forced labor. Africa provided countries such as France with oil, gold, diamonds, timber, uranium, and manganese, which they did not have previously. However, they needed laborers to obtain these resources, and as mentioned before, the justification made by Europeans were that they were taking savage, uncivilized groups and giving them structure and "civilizing" them. The natives of Africa were not seen as people, and so people thought that it was perfectly fine to take advantage of that and make them do extreme amounts of work in terrible conditions. For example, the native Kongolese people were made to work in jungles collecting rubber from trees that could take their skin off if they weren't careful. They had to meet an unrealistic quota, and when they didn't, got their hands cut off at the hands of Belgian soldiers. Belgium profited greatly off of this rubber, but the Kongolese suffered immensely.

Some possible benefits to natives are more efficient ways of doing things. For example, paved roads and other technological developments weren't there before Europeans made their way there. They also received better ways of doing things. They received better access to medicine and education when the Europeans came over.

3. I would say that the reading from Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost is indicative of the perils and effects of colonialism. Colonialism in the Kongo was about making money no matter what the cost. And it was made very clear that thousands of Kongolese lives were not thought to be a very high cost. The magnitude of their greed was just as great as the magnitude of the damage that was left behind, a horror that can never be reversed. King Leopold's Ghost is so moving to me because it's just another reminder of what we seem to ignore over and over and over. Again we see people, children, taken from their homes and made into slaves, a group of people who were forced into backbreaking labor to appease newcomers. Take the natives when the Spanish made their way over to the New World 4 centuries before this. Again we see the exploitation of natural resources. Take the exploitation of silver at Mount Potosi in Bolivia that transformed the Spanish Empire into one of the richest in the world. Again we see the destruction of land through the use of mines and harvesting in the forests of Africa. Take the destruction of Virginia soil, of Native American land when Europeans came searching for gold. Hochschild's readings capture the harshness and severity of Belgian rule over the Kongo. To be able to compare this event to so many events and say that it is even worse than them is truly chilling. It captures the perils of not only colonialism, but of ignorance towards the subject.

4. The amount of trauma felt by the African countries after the Europeans left is unfathomable. The amount of strength that was needed to move on from that event definitely speaks volumes to their nations' character. However, strength and determination won't carry a country through recovery. As they were stripped of their identity, their land, their resources, their dignity, recovery was, and continues to be a long road. Some countries have developed a significant amount since they were unoccupied, but most still have a very long way to go to dig themselves out of the poverty they were left with after the tragedies. I think that the countries responsible for this should be doing everything they can to at least clean up the mess that they made. Monetary compensation, an apology, government and economic aid. The unfortunate things is that there is not a lot they can do to fix it. There's no way to bring back languages lost, land destroyed, tribes split apart, or the lives of those enslaved. Any physical damage is permanent and irreparable. The only way to move forward is to learn, so that nobody ever has to atone for their actions in this way.

5. Responding to: Would there be any exceptions to giving reparations? Example: if country a colonized country b, yet country b is more well off than country a, should country a still pay reparations?

I think that there are definitely limits to the things that a country pays. If they can't pay it, there's no point because that would put them into economic instability, and then it would just be a constant shift of who is stable and who isn't. Also, think that if a country can afford it, they should. After how terrible colonialism treated people, it is amazing that they were able to surpass their colonizers. It's another testament to their strength. So, I think that yes, those who need to atone should, unless they can't, but should whenever they are able.


6. My question: If something like this were to start happening now, how would the world react? What would they do to help?

Eve
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 6

“The Conquest of the Earth…..is not a pretty thing”: Colonizing the Kongo

  1. Most Imperial colonizers of European origin decided to use social Darwinism and race theory to explain how they were superior and merely helped the inferior in a sort of charity work and saved them from damnation in hell due to their paganistic mannerisms. Some used the fact that they were attempting to protect the nation from outside influence so they decided to colonize them and let them basically live their lives under their rule to ensure nothing happened to them, like a helicopter parent. And lastly, the rest of the colonizers simply ignored the existence of any other nation on the land and just simply said that this land is definitely theirs and so they can do whatever they please with the land and the people who have the honor of living on it. An example of this being when the Belgian government decreed in 1885 that the Kongo state was “vacant land” and so it was property of the state.
  2. The colonist nation gets all the resources and can demand fundamentally anything it damn well pleases from the colonized nation. While those colonized get protection from getting colonized by another colonizer and also they can potentially get access to new economic heights due to the colonizers demand for production in the colonized nations. Although in most and basically all cases the colonized suffer under their colonization due to racial and nationalistic conflicts in both populations. They were subject to threats of harm, violence, forced labor, and the cultural genocide that generally followed as a result of the pursuit of European domination on the religious front.
  3. In the reading of King Leopold’s Ghost by Adam Hochschild, the forced labor and exploitation of the Congolese people is described. Through this description it can be proven that the description given is indicative of the extremes of colonialism by means of their forced labor, the punishments given, and the exploitation for rubber. The Congolese people were subject to forced labor and had to meet a rubber quota and if they failed to meet it they would either have a member of their family killed (Wife, Children) or the Belgian regime would cut off their hands. Hochschild also describes the economy where it was a command economy and along with the rubber harvest there was Ivory extraction and child labor. There were many things that King Leopold’s men made the Congolese do which other than forced labor they forced them to carry boiled human skulls and smoked human flesh.
  4. The colonization of Africa hindered the growth of nations on the continent giving them the status of “third-world” countries due to the fact that their economy was never given the chance to be independent and their resources were stolen by the European colonizers leaving them with little to nothing. The short term effects of colonization would be the justifiable resentment African countries might have with Europe. While the long term effects would begin to include the cultural genocide of the African people, the loss of farming land due to its exhaustion, no raw materials, and inflation left behind from the colonial era.
  5. The similarities in human behavior would be how most European nations still feel a sense of superiority to colonized nations and designate some as protectorate nations and for the colonized nations they still feel a sense of obligation to their colonizers like the relationship of Morocco with France. What could ex-Colonizers do (if anything at all) to pay for a sense of reparation to the colonized country?
posts 16 - 22 of 22