learntoquestion ltq discussions

Reading: Excerpt from Adam Hochschild, King Leopold’s Ghost (1999), pp. 129ff, 158ff (Several of you read this book for your summer reading. Yay you! If you are one of those folks, take a look at these pages for a reminder; if you are not one of the summer reading folks, make sure you read all of this)

"The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much."

—Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness (1902)

I’d say Conrad’s quote is….an understatement (to say the least)? The British writer Joseph Conrad wrote the 1902 novel Heart of Darkness (it’s a complicated and not-uncontroversial novel and certainly a book that you all MUST read before you die, if you have not already read it for English) after traveling up the Kongo River in 1890. Conrad said about the people of Africa that yesterday’s “savages” were “tomorrow’s paragons of civilization.”

The people living in the Kongo were most certainly not savages. But their history was profoundly affected and, sadly, reshaped by western intervention. The Kingdom of Kongo was founded c. 1390 CE by KiKongo speaking people (Congo with a C is the result of Portuguese translation.). Most Congolese today speak one of the Bantu language variants.

The kingdom reached its height in the mid-17th century but was most definitely affected by corruption, feuds among royal families, and the trade of people to be enslaved. Its center was originally the city of Mbanza, located in what today is (thanks to Portuguese colonial ambitions) Angola. Many members of the royal family and the nobility in Kongo converted to Christianity due to their interaction with Portuguese explorers and (later) missionaries. Kongolese involvement with the slave trade began with the Portuguese demands for slaves and the Kongolese king would use foreign-born (non-Kongolese) people to fulfill the Portuguese demands. Internal strife within the country—separatist groups from different royal families (such as the Soyo)--led to the royal family bartering slaves for foreign help in suppressing rebellions. Ultimately the country split in two in the mid-1600s.

Over the course of that history and continuing today, the people of the Kongo created rich artistic and musical traditions; to look at some of this spectacular art, take a look here (and yes, it’s surprising that there’s a large collection of Congolese art sitting in …..Iowa!) as well as here (for more recent masks created by Congolese artists) and to listen to traditional Congolese music (which continues today), check this out.

When the British abolished the slave trade in the early 19th century, the Kingdom of Kongo had to rely on other exports and they turned to trade in ivory and rubber. Needless to say, this made the kingdom very attractive to nations looking to establish colonies to provide them with economic wealth through natural resources.

King Leopold of Belgium saw the continent as “this magnificent African cake.” The imperial ambitions of Europe were achieved by carving up this massive “African cake,” especially during the orgy-like division of the continent at the 1884-1885 Conference of Berlin. No doubt you touched on this at least a little bit—at least I hope that you did—in World History II/AP World.

So in your post, please consider these questions and respond thoughtfully:

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

(And by the way, lest you think this is only an African issue, think about all the nations in Asia and the Middle East, not to mention Latin and South America that were once colonial subjects! And if you think about it, we, here in the US, were too.)

Please be sure to post on this in a timely fashion and be certain to reference specifics from class AND from Hochschild’s magisterial book.

Also, please be sure that at the close of your post, you (1) pose a question about this issue for the next reader AND (2) reply to the question posed by the person who posted before you did!

There are no justifications for colonization. But according to King Leopold of Belgium, African natives were lazy and needed to be civilized. In fact, he was saving their lives and offering “humanitarian” aid. By killing some, he’d set an example and save others. Also, the Force Publique was made up of African men… who “volunteered”. The only people who benefited from colonialism were Europeans, especially King Leopold himself. Congolese people did not benefit at all and were subject to exploitation for European wealth.

One of the biggest norms was the use of the chicotta for punishment. Even though white men were shocked when they first encountered it, they quickly accepted it as a norm and participated “from a distance”. They argued that they never touched the actual whip and would only command its orders. They also forced natives to inflict punishment on their own people.

The treatment of women and children were also results of colonialism. Women were chained, raped, and used as a bargaining tool to get men to collect rubber. Children were kidnapped and corced into childrens colonies to create soldiers and ingrain christianity. Before the rubber scramble, porters were chained, but due to the nature of collecting rubber, they had to enforce quotas. They used the chicotta and/or cut the hands of those who didn’t meet them.

The clearest example of the norms of colonialism is the manual distributed to European agents with instructions on how to hold people hostage to get rubber.

For a period of time, soldiers were able to fight back and threatened European authority. But in the long run, the development of African countries is extremely hindered, poverty is widespread, and many countries are constantly destabalized. Colonizing nations have a huge responsibility to their subjects. It is difficult to define how they need to “help” because even now, western intervention still has terrible outcomes.

To answer the question above, America was not left at a disadvantage compared to African countries after colonization because American citizens were white men and they weren’t the ones exploited like African natives. America would look completely different if white man never came, but I think it was inevitable.

My question for the next person: There’s lots of talk about what colonizing nations can do to “right their wrongs,” but what forms of modern colonization do we still see?

One justification has been offered for colonial rule was that the colonized people were supposedly unqualified to rule themselves. This explanation is clearly untrue, and is rooted in racism and a desire for wealth and political power.

In the case of King Leopold of Belgium, his desire for wealth and power does seem to be his motivation for colonization of the Congo. By exploiting the people who lived there and the natural resources of the region, he created a massive source of largely personal wealth that also served to increase his limited powers as a constitutional monarch. Racist propaganda was also widely used by the Belgian government and others in order to attempt to justify the horrors of colonialism to the country’s citizens.

The other European delegations to the Council of Berlin, which resulted in the colonization of nearly all of Africa, were driven by a similar type of greed, and the same indifference towards the lives of those who lived there. All of the countries that participated, especially England and France due to the size of their holdings, benefited from their profits made through the exploitation of their colonies.

The native peoples who were forced to endure colonial rule in Africa and other regions of the world suffered tremendously, both at the individual level and in systematic ways which are still being revealed today. During the European conquest of Africa about 150 years ago, many colonizers played pre-existing tribal rivalries or power struggles against each other in order to consolidate their own power. The favoring of certain groups over others during their rule helped the colonizing countries to maintain power, and created new inter-tribal tensions and stereotypes that have lasted to this day.

After reading Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost, the Belgian colonization of the Congo does seem to be the norm of colonization. While the exact type of suffering inflicted on the native population, such as the horrors of hostage-taking and rubber-collecting in the Congo, does differ across times and places, the end result is the same, in that the colonizing country becomes more powerful, and the people of the colonized country are brutalized and often turned against each other.

Previous Question: America doesn't seem to have been left at a disadvantage due to Britain's rule over us like other countries have been to their colonizers. If at all, do you think America would look different or be further/less along if we were never colonized by Britain?

I would answer this question by remembering that most of those who led the American revolution to break away from British rule were not victims of colonization, but rather the descendants of earlier British colonists who had profited through the system of colonial rule. Many of the leaders of the revolution had been highly successful as a result of the colonial system, but no longer wanted to share their profits and power with Great Britain. The victims of colonization in the US are undeniably the Native Americans, the enslaved people brought here by colonists, and their modern descendants.

Question for the next: Should countries that used to have colonies be expected to make reparations to the areas that they subjugated? Could this be beneficial to formerly colonized countries, or has too much damage already been done to make it more than a superficial gesture?

People throughout history have found several justifications for colonial expansion and control, all of which give them the idea that they have the right to rule over any nation. Imperialist countries have wanted to spread their religions to other areas, gain economic benefits from a nation’s location or natural resources, grow their influence in the world by expanding their territory, or were motivated by an idea of racial superiority. None of these justifications are actually valid for invading a nation and destroying the lives of its people. The only reason for colonialism is greed, which cannot be given an excuse for.

Oftentimes, colonialism will bring more economic prosperity to the nation, as the country expanding its rule will bring with it its trade partners and relationships with other countries. However, the only people truly benefiting from this are colonizers, and it is at the expense of the cheap labor provided by the indigenous people of the area. In the relationship between the “colonizers” and the “colonized”, the colonialist nation reaps the products and revenue that is the result of the brutal mistreatment and forced sacrifice of the colonized nation. The colonialist nations saw the continent of Africa as nothing more than an opportunity to grow their empire and accumulate wealth, completely disregarding the people and communities that made up the various tribes and groups that already lived there. The people were viewed as expendable and less than human, and that is shown when the leaders of these colonialist countries gathered together at the Berlin conference to divide and claim different territories, notably without the presence of representatives from Africa or any consideration of the preexisting territories.

Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost describes the racist sentiment that was ever-present in the Congo under imperialist rule. The Belgian king Leopold was recorded to have declared to an American reporter, “In dealing with a race composed of cannibals for thousands of years it is necessary to use methods which will best shake their idleness and make them realize the sanctity of work.” This view was a norm in the eyes of the colonizers, who ruthlessly exploited the people of the Congo for their socio-economic benefit. Colonialism was extreme in various aspects, including the punishment that was given for any slight inconvenience for a colonizer. Adam Hochschild mentions Stanislas Lefranc, a devout Catholic, monarchist, and Belgian prosecutor. While in the Congo, he had heard that when children had laughed in the presence of a white man, the man “ordered that all the servant boys in town be given fifty lashes.” Lefranc was only able to prevent the second installment of twenty-five lashes from happening.

Obviously, after being taken over and treated as slave laborers, the colonization of Africa severely changed people’s lifestyles, not to mention collectively it severely stunted the growth of the economies of these nations. Short term, African countries were faced with rebuilding their society that had been taken away from them and changed to fit European lifestyles. Long term, many African nations continue to struggle economically, and are still decades behind “first world” countries that have been independent from or benefitting from the profits that colonization in Africa gave the colonizing nations. The lasting impacts of colonization is something that cannot easily be repaid, however the colonizing nations should take responsibility for their actions. The colonizing nations have become major influences in the world economy, and offering opportunities to their former colonial subjects might help make the process of rebuilding their economies more accessible.

Response to RockPigeon: I think that countries should be expected to repay their former colonies, as they extracted so much from their colonies and gave practically nothing back in return. There are many formerly colonized countries that are still struggling, and this can be directly connected to the colonialism that took place. Though colonialism may not be the only reason that these countries are struggling, it definitely put them on a difficult path to move away from. It is true that a lot of damage has been done, and even if a gesture seems superficial, I think that if former colonizer countries are offering something that would genuinely be helpful and not a petty sum of money, it would benefit the formerly colonized countries.

My question for the next person: What do you think that colonizing nations like Great Britain or Belgium would be like today if they hadn’t colonized African countries? Would they be poorer, richer, or the same? How significant was colonization in their rise to success?

I don’t believe that there is any possible justification for colonial control over any nation. To take control of the land and population without any consultation with the people who own that land, then to exert your will and influence upon those peoples for no reason other than your need for resources and power, is simply cruelty. The reason provided for these horrific acts was often that the native people ‘needed’ to be colonized and ruled, but that idea is rooted in racism and bigotry, not fact.

There are no true benefits to colonialism to the colonized. Even in less extreme cases to that of King Leopold, colonization leads to despair and strife throughout the native community, often breaking apart families and resulting in disaster. The colonizers gain wealth, influence, and power while the people from these colonies become more and more oppressed, only being seen as a resource rather than human beings deserving of a voice in politics or even basic rights. Although some beneficial infrastructure could be built as a result, as well as the sharing of ideas, overall it is most certainly one of the most damaging ways to do so for the people and the area.

What is described in the reading from Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost is somewhat indicative of the norms of colonialism. The oppression of the people is essentially a requirement of colonialism as a concept. One thing that especially stuck out to me was the seemingly immediate acceptance of violence being used to coerce the native population into doing certain things. The idea of the colonizers being indifferent to the use of violence, using both the whip and maiming those who even slightly stepped out of line. They didn’t see any problem with that barbarity, nor the kidnapping of family members for coercion.

That indifference to people getting hurt is also seen in many other colonizing endeavors, most specifically like the British colonizing America and the resulting violence and cultural genocide to follow centuries afterwards. The thing that makes this somewhat indicative rather than fully is the fact that there is a case to be made that this is the extreme in the sense that the sheer amount of violence was certainly found to be higher than the average colony, and specifically the barbaric means that this violence was carried out. All colonialism is harmful, but we see a higher amount of inhumanity and indifference to violence in this case.

The colonization of Africa was incredibly harmful, which we can still see today. The short-term effects were initially harmful anyway — the violence and pillaging of resources. Even in areas that are no longer as heavily influenced by formed colonizers, the trauma of colonialism can still be seen in very significant ways. Instability and poverty are directly linked to colonialism. These areas went from being directly controlled and pillaged for resources to the continuation of pillaging those resources today with little benefit for the nations. Many colonizers would also play up a native populations’ differences to maintain control, leaving tensions and border conflicts. This instability is based only on the exploitation of colonialism.

How does Liberia fit into all this, what should America do to give reparations, if you even think they should?

Due to America’s long history of not only initially invading Liberia with the American Colonization Society but also continuously intervening in their internal affairs, I think that America should certainly give reparations to the country. The US essentially has tried to manipulate the nation and I think it would be best to ask the citizens of the country what would be beneficial to them rather than to generally guess.

My question: How do you think America and other colonizing nations should more publicly take responsibility for both their histories of colonization as well as modern colonialism?

I believe that there is no justification for colonial control. The invasion and exploitation of entire cultures and people is inexcusable. That is not to say that colonizers didn’t try to justify their actions. At the time of the colonization of the Congo, Social Darwinism and the idea of a “white man’s burden” played a major role in public campaigns in Europe to get people to support colonization. Religion also played a role as missionaries and other leaders sought to convert colonized peoples to Christianity especially. King Leopold’s Ghost described the horrific children’s colonies established by Catholics in the Congo. Political leaders used these excuses painted a picture that they were “saving” Africa, when in truth they were decimating much of the continent and aiding in the deaths of millions of people.

The benefits of colonialism are entirely skewed to the side of the colonizer. Colonizing countries reap economic benefits and increased power, but colonized peoples often get nothing but violence. As can be seen in examples through nearly every colonized country, coerced labor is often used by colonial powers to exploit both the people and resources in a colony. As described in King Leopold’s Ghost, Kongolese people were threatened and killed in order for Belgium and King Leopold to gain large amounts of valuable ivory and rubber. The very nature of how Africa was divided up between colonizing powers is evident of this exploitative relationship. At the Berlin Conference the entire continent was carved up across a mix of natural borders and arbitrary lines by a room of people who had almost no information about the people and land which they were claiming. From the very beginning, these powers had no intention of doing anything “good” in Africa, and merely saw the continent as a way to gain an economic and power advantage over other colonizing countries. This attitude strongly contributed to the colonial governing systems which then took all benefits for themselves.

The events described the the book King Leopold’s Ghost by Adam Hochschild are indicative of the horrific norms of colonialism. The practices detailed can be found in examples of colonization around the world. The colonization of the Congo saw the forced labor of millions in order to economically exploit the region. Women, elders, and children were frequently kidnapped and held hostage in order to coerce able bodied men to fulfill quotas in exchange for their lives, though many died or were killed anyway. The chicotte was used across the colony as a form of terror both for those who were abused and the Kongolese who the Belgian officers forced to inflict the wounds. The book also describes the lack of hesitation with which soldiers would kill people being forced to work as porter if they didn’t fully and immediately comply. Even in situations where they weren’t murdered directly by an officer, many died from exhaustion or dehydration while transporting goods. These systems of terror and forced labor were not unique to the Congo or even to the colonization of Africa. Similar practices were used by Portugal and Spain in the colonization of the Americas as well. King Leopold also convinced groups of Catholics in the Congo to set up children’s colonies where children, many of whom had lost both of their parents to Belgian violence, were forced to go. Many died in the camps or in the journey to them, and those who didn’t were turned into soldiers for the army. This definitely reminded me of the boarding schools created in the US for Native American children who were also forcibly removed from their homes and cultures. These specific atrocities committed in the Congo during colonization were tragically no unique or extreme cases but rather are indicative of a pattern across the globe.

The short and long term effects of colonization in Africa on the development of countries on the continent are endless. Socially and politically, European countries carved up the continent along arbitrary lines, dividing and combining ethnic groups in ways which have led to many violent conflicts such as the Rwandan genocide. Economically, colonizers left the continent depleted of natural resources and a stable structure, which was then further destabilized by political conflict. This has also led many large multinational corporations to turn to Africa for cheap labor, continuing control by rich and powerful people from Europe especially over the continent. Despite how its often discussed, decolonization of Africa was relatively recent and the effects have definitely not faded, and likely won’t in the near future.

In response to someepiphany’s question, I definitely think colonizing nations need to take greater public responsibility for their histories. As Ms.Freeman discussed in her MLK day presentation, the US has done poorly with even attempting to repair the atrocities committed in and by this country. Unfortunately, it is not alone. Too few people are aware of the scope or impact of colonization, especially more recently, and countries taking public responsibility would definitely help to spread awareness, and hopefully lead to concrete action to try and account for what happened.

My question for the next person is: In what ways do we still see colonization today, just under different names or faces?

European or Western nations justify colonial control for many reasons. They saw colonialism as a way to economically support their country and use new lands for new resources and therefore commerce. Another way of thinking is that these colonists are helping a ‘savage race’ or people. Introducing western ways of life and work. This highlights the social Darwinist ideas white colonists shared.

Colonialism was seen as positive but was involuntary for many civilians and created dangerous environments. As I mentioned before, colonialism benefited colonialist nations because of how they used the resources found for profit. On the other hand, they attained such resources through the exploitation of the natives of the land. As described in the reading Africans were used for not only ivory gathering but rubber collection and were abused and whipped for little to no reason and also received practically no monetary benefits. The colonized nations were swept with hysteria as there was no communication as to what was occurring. Overall there was not a symbiotic relationship between the colonizers and colonized.

The reading highlights the reality of colonialism. The abuses and inhumane treatment enacted or directed by colonist officials is extreme but the norm in these lands. In Congo, they established African porters who were exposed to horrendous conditions. They would be chained to one another, and walk with pounds of stuff or loads on their backs. One major form of discipline was with the whip known as chicotte. It wouldn’t be uncommon to witness some kind of execution or violence towards the natives of the land. There was also sexual and physical abuse towards women. Under Leopold’s rule Africans were used and exploited only for profit and benefit.

I feel that colonization has impacted Africa with its overall slow development and violence. To this day there is a lot of gang violence and sexual violence and overall danger. These lingering effects are presented in the modern day and colonization nations should recognize the damage they have caused. Some people do not see colonization in a negative light and see it as a form of igniting development but this way of thinking diminishes the racial superiority that was active and its impact.

In today's world colonies should be taken care of and not only used and exploited. Colonized nations should have more power or say in what occurs on their lands and the profit made in effect of those lands. We should be aware of modern-day colonies and the long-lasting impacts colonization has had all over the world.

Colonial powers would justify their conquests by claiming they had a legal or religious obligation to take over the land & culture of indigenous peoples, but this isn't moral. The main reasons a nation would seek out colonization was either to spread religion or to claim new lands for resources. I think Europe’s justification of colonization of The New World is interesting because it happened during the age of exploration. But this age was driven by necessity, Europe had relied on Asia for goods & when trade routes were put under threat by the rise in power of the Ottoman empire, Europe came up with the solution to secure trade routes with Asia by seeking routes by sea. Christopher Columbus, thinking he was on his way to Asia, came across three islands in the Caribbean. In this situation, some might think Europe was justified in colonization because their main trading routes were threatened, therefore they needed to look for goods & resources elsewhere. But no matter the situation a nation might be in, taking over a land & its people’s culture could never be justified.

There are definitely benefits for the colonialist nation, they gain more land which means also gaining the land’s resources. In addition they might spread their religion, it's not guaranteed they’ll be successful but most of the time they are through threats & violence. Gaining more land is also a benefit to the nation's military. The military could recruit more soldiers, which would lead to larger & stronger armies. If the land of the colonized nation is far enough & closer to an enemy nation, they could build a military base in order to be closer. As for the colonized nation, no benefits are guaranteed except for maybe protection from the colonialist nation but this really only counts as a benefit if the nation was weak on its own/being threatened by another nation. This is a trick question since it depends on a lot of factors. Maybe the nations both agreed for one to take control over the other in exchange for things like protection or benefits for the people, but of course this would only apply if the nation kept their promise. Like Puerto Rico, it has been legally a part of the US as a result of the Spanish-American war in 1898. There is a US military base established there but Puerto Ricans do get some US benefits. Every Puerto Rican born individual is naturally a US citizen & are eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement, but they don't get every benefit I believe they should get the right to. PR is excluded from the Supplemental Security Income, the island also actually receives less than 15% of the Medicaid funding it would normally receive if it were a U.S. state which is ridiculous considering the US takes advantage of every resource they could possibly gain from PR.

What is described in the reading from Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost indicative of the norms of colonialism. Some might say the book depicts the extremes of colonialism but the upsetting reality is they see it as extreme because when we are taught of colonialism, they don't teach us about the real horrors people went through, like getting their hand cut off for not producing enough rubber. Or having your wife and children being killed or kidnapped for not having that rubber in time. The late Chadwick Boseman once said “Colonialism is the cousin of slavery.” I fully agree with this quote since the people in a colonized nation may not exactly be slaves but they are far from being free. I feel like the way those living in a nation that is then colonized are treated is overlooked, and that it's something no one thinks to question but Adam Hochschild’s book does a good job of finally bringing something like this to light.

To answer the previous question, I dont think it's rational to think colonizers genuinely believed they were doing more good than harm. They knew they were doing good for their own nation and that they would thrive from colonization. Colonizers are selfish, and it's not a surprise they would only think in their own nation. Its not wrong, as a King or leader, to want more land or resources. But it is wrong, as a human being, to go about this the wrong way like many leaders have done in the past. King Leopold is only one of many examples you could look for in history.

My question for the next:

On June 8 2022, Belgian King Philippe expressed regrets for the colonization of the Congo free state (now DRC), do you think this apology was enough from the King? If not, what could he have possibly said to or done for DRC? Do you think DRC should forgive the state of Belgium?