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!

Colonial control over nations isn’t directly stated as “colonization”, nor is it announced as colonization to the people responsible for it. Instead, it is sugarcoated with promises of new natural resources, more trading opportunities, gaining more religious followers through conversion, and business opportunities. There is also the other approach of propaganda and demonizing / de-humanizing the people that the nation will have control over. One such example could be Nazi propaganda and their portrayal of Jews, that the Jews were people conspiring for war, overthrowing the government, or taking over the world. Another case would be self-righteous or moral imperialism, another justification that nations have used for colonial or imperialistic control. One good example would be the U.S.’s involvement with Latin America in the late 1800s and early 1900s, where the U.S. justified itself by “aiding lesser developed” nations. Many terms are rearranged in a way to not have a negative connotation to it, allowing wiggle room to occur.

There are a lot of benefits that are reaped from colonialism, which often tends to be one-sided, typically in favor of the nation that started to spread its influence. The biggest benefit would be the access to new resources, which then lead to more trading opportunities, business opportunities, and even exchange of ideas. These opportunities can range from the selling of goods and slaves to the spread of religions (Christianity, Catholicism, etc) and even scientific ideas (medicine, technology, inventions, etc). However, as I stated earlier, colonialism tends to be in favor of the colonist nation, so they get much more from the “arrangement”. This often leads to the slow and often brutal exploitation of the colonized people and resources, continuing until the nation is drained of its resources. The colonized people do get knowledge of new cultures, resources, and ideas, but some are often forced upon them, such as forcing people to specific religions or languages. This pattern that has occurred over and over again throughout history is one of the many reasons why there are large, global superpowers that heavily influence the world, but the many nations that these superpowers have colonized in the name of “moral / humanitarian aid” or “to wipe out” are still left underdeveloped and weak.

Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold's Ghost focuses on the nitty gritty, ranging from aspects of daily life to the politics involved at the time. However, the biggest takeaway is the fact that King Leopold of Belgium had absolute power and authority over the colony of Congo. The first two things to be noted early on should be the medal system and leased land to large, private companies. The medal system would be given to “‘recognize merit and acknowledge service rendered to Us’” (Hochschild 116), utilizing patriotism and a sense of nationalism to gain control over the Kongo. It is also stated later on that Belgium did not have the resources to fully colonize the Kongo, so Leopold leased “vacant land” as the “property of the state”, allowing Leopold to become the head of a large group of wealthy investors. With this, Leopold established both authority and control over the resources and people in the Kongo. Later, it is noted that the people within the Kongo are referred to as “cannibals”and that the colonists must “use methods which will best shake their idleness and make them realize the sanctity of their work”, illustrating that Leopold had normalized the idea that the people within the Kongo were savages that needed to be tamed through physical force. One example would be the whipping of people with the chicote, a whip made out of hippo hide that was shaped into twisted strips. An account from devout Catholic and monarchist Stanislas LeFranc revealed that he witnessed many porters being whipped, both young and old, until they were beaten unconsciously or even until they fell dead. This wasn’t unusual within the ports of Kongo, with the deaths of many Kongo natives being normalized on a regular daily basis.

The extremities of the colonization of the kingdom of Kingo would spike when mutiny, rebellions, and guerilla warfare would occur. Hochschild’s work heavily detailed the accounts of violence between the colonizer and the colonized, from the number to casualties and parties involved, to the names of military leaders involved, like a local chief named Nzansu who had led an uprising, or base commander Mathieu Pelzer, who was betrayed by his own soldiers. The war between colonizer and colonized would still continue until as late as the 1960s.

War within the colonized nation of Kongo was not the only cause of mass death, as famine, disease, and indiscriminate killing were also heavily present. People of all ages, even young children and babies, were killed on a regular basis. From stabbing a man for not moving to a line fast enough, to throwing babies onto the ground to stop them from crying, these actions are reminiscent of atrocities that the imperialistic Japanese had committed, or what Nazi Germany had done to the Jewish population. In addition, there was a well established slave system within the nation of Kongo, where some Kongo nobles and royalists sold their own people for goods and European currency to be utilized in international trade markets.

Concerning the Kongo’s involvement within the international market, the Kongo’s biggest contribution was rubber. The cost would be hundreds of people dying for the smallest inconveniences, or people left with vast amounts of physical and mental trauma. Officials set high production quotas to maximize profits, but there were also extremely strict and unforgiving regulations. If a family was caught trying to mix in pebbles and dirt within the rubber to fit the production quota, then the family would be forced to eat it, with their whole tribe potentially being massacred for it too. It was also very often that severed hands were required as proof, with many hands being smoked to preserve them, in order to show officials fresh hands. Due to these incidents, the nation of Kongo became known for its mountains of severed hands.

Colonization in Africa permanently left it underdeveloped compared to other nations, abandoned and left to fend for themselves when they no longer have a use. Nations in Africa are drained of their natural resources, leaving permanent damage to geography or even the economy. Many nations were introduced too early to the global market, releasing even more exposure to their abundance of natural resources. Without industrialization, African nations were unable to properly defend themselves against the advanced Europeans, which also impacted the flow of who was in power and politics alike. Nations have been exploited to a degree that many nations are unable to properly bounce back, which continues to this day. Nations that have colonized other nations must pay reparations, which still barely accounts for the destruction of the environment, people, economy, and government. However, there are still many nations that deny the existence of such incidents in history occurring, or directly refusing to pay reparations.

Belgium has acknowledged the atrocities that they had committed in the Kongo, yet refuse to pay reparations to descendants of survivors. If Belgium is unable to properly pay reparations to the people of the Kongo, what else should they do to fully acknowledge their colonial legacy?

Colonizers have clearly benefited the most from colonialism. As previously stated, many colonized areas provide resources that generate substantial profit + an entire group of people to “work” for the colonizers. Colonialist nations also get the credit. Think about Columbus- his “discovery” was praised for so long. I feel like his wrongs have only been widely recognized in just the last few years. The colonized nations don’t benefit at all really. They lose their homes, families, lives, culture, and so much more. Maybe one could argue that colonization brought colonized people together, it gave them a new sense of community which inspired them to rebel, like the people of the Kongo. It is also quite interesting to learn that even though they had suffered so greatly, they still had morals. For example, a white priest was captured, but he was spared, and even gifted, by the rebels. They explained that they would only kill white men who had wronged them. So, we see that even having dealt with this brutal trauma, colonized people still had humanity. But still, I think that even if a colonized nation “benefited,” in this situation, the cost greatly outweighs the benefits. In fact, I am sure the people of Kongo would have still been moral without colonization.

I feel that the excerpt indicates just how gruesome and cruel this case of colonization was. There was a woman who watched her sister’s baby (as well as many other babies) be left in the grass to die. She had watched her husband be stabbed and killed because he was too tired to walk anymore. She had dealt with extreme starvation. It is insane that the colonizers put these people through so much, yet still expected them to keep on marching. It truly seems like they were toying with how long the colonized people could last. There were multiple cases where groups of children were whipped countless times. White people recounted the screams of terror they would constantly hear. Yet, these beatings became part of the daily routine. One man recounted the first time he witnessed a lynching, and wasn’ty horrified. He seemed proud of himself too, proud that he didn’t wince at a man being hate crimed. I wonder if the torture ever become “normal” for the people of Kongo.

There is no doubt that colonization has extreme effects. Mostly, we see white people being the colonizers. This is one of the things that created the barrier between white people, and BIPOC. Colonization was based on white people being the ones in charge, the ones who needed to be respected. So, evidently, colonized people become scared of the white man, they become angry at him. From colonization, a very strange power dynamic between white people and POC grew. There are also the countless environmental and economic effects that must have changed colonized nations like Africa. Colonizers had taken advantage of the natural resources. I can only imagine there was a significant decrease in the amount of rubber trees.

I think that colonizing nations have an extreme responsibility. It is not enough to simply acknowledge we are on stolen land (as we now do in assemblies)- this is just a step into the progression we need to be making. I believe we need to provide funding, clean water, support, respect, etc., to colonized communities. I know it would be very difficult to give back every piece of land to colonized communities, considering the nations that have been built since, so I am not sure what to do about the actual tangible land situation.

Answering BigGulpFrom711’s question: If Belgium cannot properly pay reparations to Kongo, in order to fully acknowledge the colonization, Belgium should provide resources that the Kongo may need. They can help them with things like housing, food, etc.

My question is: What should we do about giving back land to colonized peoples?

Throughout American history, we have always viewed ourselves as the “shining city atop a hill”. We entered World War One because our president, Woodra Wilson, wanted to show the world American strength and democracy. Similarly, America has entered into countless nations and their conflicts in the name of freedom. There is definitely a justification for colonialism, and it goes as follows: one nation decides that it is so advanced and superior that it enters another nation and begins “helping” it. However, oftentimes the invaded nation is not helped whatsoever. While America, and all colonial powers for that matter, enter into other areas with the stated goal of spreading their values, it often turns into something much different. For example, in Vietnam, America supposedly entered the war to help spread Democracy and liberate Vietnam. However, the use of agent orange and other destructive substances left the health and economy of the nation in an overall worse position than it was originally. While there is some justification for colonialism, it almost always turns out very poorly for the nation being entered.

Despite all the harm that it causes, Colonialism does have some benefits. One major benefit the colonized nation receives is access to better technology. For example, many African countries rapidly industrialized after the Scramble for Africa, which allowed them to enter global trade. Even this, though, helped their colonizers, as they were able to produce goods by using the labor force of conquered people. Another way that colonized nations are helped is through the building of infrastructure. Roadways and ports can help enter these countries into global trade. However, again, the colonizing nation benefits off of this. Any infrastructure they build is for their own gain, as they cannot fully exploit a nation without infrastructure. While it is true that sometimes colonized nations can be improved, the colonizing nation always benefits more from those improvements.

Something which is revealed through the reading from Adam Hoschschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost is the idea that if enough external pressure is applied, people will allow terrible atrocities to happen to a nation unable to defend itself. One example of this is the fact that many colonists saw so much terrible violence and misery that these scenes stopped affecting them. This would make it much less likely for them to speak out, as they viewed violence as completely normal. Another pressure was that anyone who spoke up was punished in terrible ways, dissuading rebellion. For example, the rebels of the Force Publique were all killed by being smoked out in a cave, dissuading others from stopping the government. Finally, one of the strongest pressures was the greed induced by the huge profit margins of the colonists. In Europe, it was accepted that anyone who went to Africa would come back filthy rich, adding to the disregard for the human rights violations going on. This chapter shows how colonialism can quickly cascade into something much, much more sinister, as people are stopped in many ways from helping the discriminated against nation.

Finally, in my view, the short and long term effects on Africa due to colonialism have been mostly negative. To start, the short term was exceptionally bad, with European governments enslaving entire populations for cheap labor. For example, in the Congo, the atrocities committed against the people there were unspeakable, but greatly benefited the Belgian economy. However the long term effects are also bad. Because the colonizing nations created factories and infrastructure, when they eventually did leave, this left African nations with tools, but absolutely no way to upkeep them. Thus, Africa is left with broken roads, factories, cities, and slums. I think that the colonizing nations have a large majority of the blame, given that when they decided to withdraw, they did little to help the nations that they conquered. Because of the greed of the nations which colonized them, Africa has largely been torn up and destroyed by colonization, and the offenses against the continent as a whole has set them back generations.

To respond to lil Breezy’s question of “What should we do about giving back land to colonized peoples?

While in this post, I have made it clear that I despise colonialism, I think that full reparations are simply unrealistic in the real world. I think reparations need to be made in other forms such as financial aid or help with building infrastructure. However, even this I believe is unlikely, as there is not a huge incentive for colonizing nations to pay reparations. (although in an ideal world they definitely should)

My question: Do you think that it is ever okay to colonize a nation? What are the conditions that make it right?

Reading this excerpt of King Leopold’s Ghost, all I could say is that it was worse than any horror movie I’ve seen. The capability of humans to be so vile and hypocritical is absolutely disgusting. These colonizers protrayed and treated African people as uncivilized monsters and savages needing to be tamed and disciplined, when they themselves are what need to learn how to be “civilized.”

To the colonizer, their colonies provide endless bounty. The Belgians viewed Kongo as a treasure trove of property and money. You can be greedy and barbaric all you want, all outside of the control of the law. People from your homeland think you are saviors for “civilizing” the African people there and supporting your economy. For the criminals, bankrupts, and alcoholics — and countless other Belgians — this was heaven.

A nation that is colonized, no matter how copious in resources it is, is a barren and dark land. The colonizer forces humans into becoming objects to exploit for work, to rape, and to punish. It removes the nation’s children from their culture and identity, just as when the Belgians would take Kongolese children and force them as “orphans” to grow up to serve the colonizer kingdom. The colonizer paints a picture to its own people that they are doing something necessary and good — just as when King Leopold stated that colonizing the Kongo would help to abolish slavery in Africa — in order to remove any worry or uprising from occurring. All of this sound familiar?

To me, colonialism itself is extremism. To force your nation upon the freedom and culture of another is pure extreme. The story of Belgians taking women hostage to force Kongolese to retrieve rubber for them … the story of rubber workers being punished by being forced to rub excrement on their faces and eating dirt, pebbles, and rubber … to think of the emotional and physical abuse, the seizing of personal dignity, the sacrifices having to be made, the tears being shed … all the weight of it being placed on these humans. For the Kongolese and all colonized peoples to remain human or to believe in something, when all they could see was savagery and barbarism from the colonizers, it is a feat unto itself.

How, I wonder, was all this able to happen? How are humans capable of doing this to others? Desensitization and disassociation. I notice a pattern of shifting the blame or the hard work onto others. Many of the colonizers would make others punish while being the orchestrator of the punishment.

Colonization made all the difference in our current “world order.” Europe, especially Western Europe, with relatively less natural resources, was able to rise to the top economically, while countries, rich in natural capital, deserving to rise to the top economically, were pushed down and exploited. It’s absolutely unnatural to me. The economic stability and the power that countries like Great Britain and France have today would not have existed without the nations they colonized.

The effects on the colonization of Africa did not end at its decolonization. Today, ethnic conflicts catalyzed by colonial borders and divisions continue today, as with the Rwandan genocide. The economic and governmental instability of previously colonized African countries are largely due to European colonization. European countries have all the responsibility for reckoning with their past of colonialism, and this reconciliation has not happened yet. Many of these European colonizer countries have sought to distance themselves from their bloody history of evil.

For instance, I think of Queen Elizabeth’s death, how it was all respected and all properly done. The adoration and respect for a monarchy that has stood by and encouraged a bloody history, to juxtapose it with the brutality and immorality that the British government have largely ignored, is highly disturbing. There will never be a pure exchange for the crimes against humanity that these European colinzers have done, but what sort of reconciliation should be done?

In response to the previous question by Augustus_Gloop — I see this question as a parallel to "is it ever justified to strip people of their fundamental human rights?" Just as that question should never be answered yes under any conditioned, a nation should never be colonized under any condition. I don’t think there are any exceptions.

Colonialism, the control of one country or region by another, can be justified by various reasons such as economic gain, strategic advantage, and the spread of culture or religion. However, these justifications often overlook the harm and exploitation inflicted on the colonized population. In the case of the Congo, as described in Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost, the atrocities committed by the Belgian colonizers were particularly egregious.

The Kingdom of Kongo, which was founded by KiKongo speaking people in the 14th century, had a rich history and culture. However, the arrival of the Portuguese in the late 15th century began a process of exploitation and manipulation that would ultimately lead to the colonization of the Congo by the Belgian King Leopold II.

The Portuguese began trading in slaves with the Kongo, and as the demand for slaves increased, the Kongolese began to capture and sell their own people to fulfill the demand. This internal strife within the country, along with the interference of foreign powers, led to the decline of the kingdom and its eventual division in the mid-1600s.

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. 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” and set out to claim his share.

The imperial ambitions of Europe were achieved by carving up this massive “African cake”, especially during the division of the continent at the Berlin Conference. In the case of the Congo, King Leopold II claimed it as his personal property, renaming it the Congo Free State. He then proceeded to extract as much rubber and ivory as possible, using brutal methods to force the Congolese to work.

The methods used by Leopold’s agents were horrific and included violence, mutilation, and murder. Villages were burned, people were tortured, and entire populations were forced to work in conditions that amounted to slavery. The death toll is estimated to be in the millions, and the brutal treatment of the Congolese led to widespread famine and disease.

In terms of benefits, the colonialist nation often gains access to natural resources and labor, as well as potential markets for their goods and services. However, the benefits of colonialism for the colonized nation are often minimal and come at a great cost. The colonized nation may gain access to new technologies and infrastructure, but often at the cost of losing control over their own resources and culture. The exploitation of the Congolese people, and the destruction of their culture and society, was justified by the economic benefits gained by the colonizers.

The atrocities described in Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost are indicative of the extreme abuse and exploitation that occurred during the colonial period. Such actions were not limited to the Congo, but were widespread throughout the colonies. The legacy of colonialism continues to be felt by the Congolese people and other colonized nations long after the colonizers have left.

1. Colonizers always have their own justifications for colonial control, and it usually stems from a source of greed. Whether they need resources, or a source of labor, the idea of expansion into another nation comes with so many benefits, and minimal drawbacks given that the citizens of the colonized nation never rebel and remain oppressed. The state in power can create whatever propaganda or use whatever framing they want, like the idea that they’re saving an inferior race. However, from a humanitarian point of view, there is absolutely no benefits or justifications that can be made for colonialism.

2. For the colonialist nation, there are tons of benefits to colonialism. By ruling over others, you can exploit them for economic gain. The nation usually enslaves the natives, and uses them to grow global commodities like sugar, or rubber. This was seen in how France’s economy depended on Haiti, or how Belgium profited heavily from the rubber and the ivory found in the Kongo. The oppressed peoples are also exploited in times of war, usually in the form of conscription. Even though Puerto Ricans aren’t technically citizens (and they’re also technically not a colony, they’re a “commonwealth” of America), they can still be drafted into the American army. Very rarely does the colonized nation receive any meaningful benefits from being oppressed, and what little benefits they may receive are heavily outweighed by the cons. In the case of the Kongo, we really got to see the extreme lows that can occur as a result of colonization. The conditions for the natives were absolutely inhumane, with children being put to work, babies left to die, and porters often being sent to die without any remorse from Europeans whatsoever.

3. The reading of King Leopold’s Ghost was absolutely horrid, to the point where just thinking about it gives me a headache. The struggle of the natives was so graphic, and the amount of tragedies they went through just to seek equality and freedom was heartbreaking. From Kandolo, who started an uprising that lasted well after his death just two years into his mutiny, to the Sanga people, who chose to die in that cave instead of negotiating with the state, and Nzansu who overthrew a state post and seemingly remained in control of it for years, even if his fate remains unknown. Kids were converted to Catholicism and sent to special colonies, yet almost 50% died on the way to these colonies. When the children died, the state officials had the audacity to comment, “our good sisters couldn’t save them, but all had the happiness of receiving the Holy Baptism; they are now holy angels who are praying for our great king.” Out of all the uprisings that occurred, the only one that seemed to have any success at all was Mulamba’s mutiny in 1897, which ended with the surviving mutineers seeking refuge in the German territories of modern Rwanda and Burundi. It was somehow even more heartbreaking that these peoples, even after all the atrocities and injustices they endured, never lost their humanity, like when Mulamba spared Father Auguste Achte or Nzansu spared the Swede. I do think that what occurred at the Kongo was an extreme of colonialism, but that the suffering and pain depicted here parallels a lot of what fueled colonialism, and what the colonized had to endure because of the greed of colonizers. Most colonies end up as money printers for the ones in control, and reaped absolutely none of the benefits. Similarly to the power that corporations held in Central America on banana plantations, the natives were stuck in a completely closed system: they had no actual money to spend elsewhere, no way to escape, no support systems to rely on. Their entire society was built around keeping them silenced and oppressed, and that allowed the injustices to go on for as long as they did.
   
   I think that the atrocities committed by King Leopold are downright insane, and need to be discussed more. The list of crimes that he committed in this single, forty page reading is already so long it’s almost comical. He disregarded the wellbeing of thousands, if not millions of people, just so he could profit from both the ivory trade and the rubber trade, all while never actually visiting the Kongo once in his lifetime. He leased tons of not-so-vacant land to private companies, whilst still receiving 50% of the profits because he wanted to make more money! Leopold kept trying to portray himself as a good person to others, like when he denounced slavery and made it illegal, whilst being in cahoots with one of the most infamous Arab-Afro slave traders ever, and while upholding a societal system in the Kongo that was arguably even worse than slavery. On top of all of that, he disowned his own sister after she failed to marry into ruling the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and willingly chose to align with the Nazis. His name should be up there with Hitler in terms of human monsters.

4. The colonization that occurred in Africa heavily affected its ability to modernize and industrialize. Even as territories slowly started to become independent from their European overlords, they were so damaged and deprived of resources that they could never truly recover. They didn’t have the assets to compete with global powers that had already established themselves, such as America or China. In terms of the Kongo, Belgium has publicly issued apologies for what they did, but never formally paid reparations or really did anything to help the Kongo on the international stage. When the history is as definitive as this, reparations should absolutely be paid in terms of finance, resources, alliances, etc. This isn’t like Israel with the Armenian genocide, as Belgium actually acknowledges the damage they caused; yet they still haven’t paid reparations. They caused the problem, so they need to provide the support needed for recovery, and then some.
   
   To answer renaissance’s question, I think that the basis for reparations is with acknowledgement. Countries need to acknowledge that their past governments have committed unforgivable acts, and yet they need to accept that and move forward, improving upon their previous sins. From there, they need to compensate the victims, through money, resources, and general support. They need to help ensure that the colonized country can actually modernize properly, and sustain their own independence without being conquered by another colonial power. Only then can reconciliation really start, and even then it’s perfectly ok for formerly oppressed citizens to hold grudges against their former oppressors.
   
   To ask another question: Had the Kongo been under the rule of another colonial power like France of Great Britain, do you think the conditions would’ve been as bad? If so, would they have faced repercussions, or would they get off relatively scot-free, like Belgium?

1. There is no moral or ethical justification in any scenario. I can’t imagine any situation where upending the system of stability and structure in any state would be justifiable. And every time through history, colonial control has ended in structural violence and oppression, not liberation. A common argument within European history was that the white people needed to educate, clean, and help the rest of this world. This white saviorism became a justification and means of oppression for millions across the globe. The justification which is not justifiable ethically is using colonialism as a means to more financial and economic power for a state. We see this commonly within Portugal, Britain, France, etc.

2.There are very few benefits to colonialism. One of the few benefits was colonialist nation building infrastructure or other programs that would make the nation run more efficiently. An example from our article would be the attempt to fund public schools in Leopold’s reign. However, these “benefits” tread on very thin lines as these things primarily served to help the colonialist nation and the measly byproduct might be beneficial. They also served to further entrench the people in a system of violence as the educated became soldiers that would continue the cycle of oppression. In general cases, these colonialist nations get unfettered access to more land, people, resources, and power. Colonized nations become the ultimate source of inequality and money. The colonized nation does not receive much: their sovereignty, dignity, humanity, resources are being taken away and any move to change does not have the minds of the colonized in hand.

3.Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost describe a norm of colonialism. Despite most of the except focusing on Leopold’s rule, we get the sense that his rule is the norm. For example, during history class, we learned that almost every state in Africa was colonized. Only a few remained untouched. But also when we analyze the incentives that led to colonialism and its upholding, we can find that colonialism was pushed under a common thread of greed and selfishness. For example, the desire for Ivory became a central reason for colonization in Africa. It allowed Europeans to justify violence on every single level. Yet, once ivory became a less desired commodity, the expansion of rubber into capital markets became another incentive. Time and time again, colonialism was strengthened by human greed and this greed inherently led to the terrible conditions endured by the colonized. This might have been worse in Congo as Leopold privately owned the region, and saw everything in terms of profits. The system became, thus, more privatized and imperial than other states.

In this colonial state, we saw violence unimaginable. Children and old people were not removed from this oppression. Africans were also removed from the money system, and had almost no mobility whatsoever. The violence got so bad that there were battles at Tshmakele and uproars led by Nzansu, where people died for the noble fight for equality and freedom.

4.The short term effects of colonization were clear. Violence against communities was common. People held at gunpoint and whipped by white officers. Their resources were taken away from them and used for global markets. Essentially, entire states became enslaved by Western powers. It's crazy to think that almost every part of the world has been touched by this incessant violence and corruption.

But the long term effects were just as pernicious. The majority of the world remain in a state of fragile political strength and weak economics because institutions from the West like colonization, the IMF, etc were all used in a way to systematically exploit the developing world. Despite colonization on face not existing, decolonization and the effects of colonization still persist today. That’s why billions remain in the global south despite moves for economic integration and an unprecedented growth in things like vaccines, innovation, and education. It’s also why today, almost all industrial nations today offshore their operations elsewhere, where there are weaker regulations and where they can exploit the workers there. Today, their status is tarnished by the legacy of colonization. I would not be surprised if the West still saw the rest of the globe as inferior as an entrenched mindset. For example, we tend to generalize poverty and a lack of water to the entire rest of the world, despite this not being true and the West being a cause for many of these problems.

I think colonizing nations do play an important role in trying to help colonized nations gain independence after because even after colonization itself ends, the lingering effects of resource dependency, exploitation, and decades of violence will continue onwards. This may include things like gradual liberalism in their economies, strong regulated markets, and international bodies to check against human rights abuses.

To answer Bubble’s question:

“To ask another question: Had the Kongo been under the rule of another colonial power like France of Great Britain, do you think the conditions would’ve been as bad? If so, would they have faced repercussions, or would they get off relatively scot-free, like Belgium?”

I believe that the situation would be still terrible. France and Great Britain colonized Africa and have a long history of imperial control over others. However, the distinction that can be made is that Leopold II privately owned Congo and, thus, essentially raised his own private mercenary and military group to rule the region. Whereas on the other hand, states were in control of the colonized land. Leopold’s only incentive was simply profits.

My question is how do we confront the future of colonialism, especially in an age, where neocolonialism and our current markets uphold the exploitation of workers globally?

There is not any justification for colonial control over any nation, it is just simply motivation. It’s always attempted to be portrayed as something that benefitted all whether if it was false promises or antagonizing groups of people to push their agenda further. It only ever is for selfish and bad intentions for resources, territory, strategy, and economy. Rarely, the colonized nation ever benefits and instead face serious harm and exploitation under colonial control due to the fact that they usually do not have the power to be able to fight back.

Colonialism always benefits the country doing the colonization. They exploit the country for their natural resources and commodities in order to participate in trade and improve their economic status. This eventually leads to their resources being shortened and drained. Not only do they use this opportunity for trade, they use it to spread ideas of religion and language which can sometimes end up being enforced immorally. They also exploit its people enslaving them and using them for labor and trade. They also gain land and ports that help benefit them in agriculture and sea travel. The oppressed nation only benefits by industrializing and gaining improved infrastructure, however it benefits the oppressors more.

Reading Adam Hochchild’s King Leopold’s Ghost and reading about what occurred is horrifying to learn about. The amount of violence and inhumane acts that occurred and became normalized is terrible. How women were raped and leveraged against men to get rubber collected. How often hands were cut off to the point that they were known for being “The Mountain of Severed Hands”. How people were whipped and maimed for not complying with them. Not only that but seeing how antagonized they were, being called cannibals and savages is atrocious. And how easily the colonizers believed it and continued to assume that they were helping instead of oppressing.

Not only did the short term effects extremely harm Africa by exhausting its resources and people but the long term effects have also largely hindered Africa in development. The drained resources leave a resounding impact on the geography and likely will never recover to the original state of abundance they were in. Poverty and instability can traced back to colonialism due to the fact that they stopped and left them to figure out how to develop by themselves suddenly. Majority of the responsibility for all of these occurrences fall on the colonizers as they left them with no reparations or help.

Answering Juicy Burger’s question, there needs to be more laws and regulations on what resources can be used and protection on worker’s rights. There also needs to be less dependence on exports.

My question is do you think that reparations could ever be enough to properly apologize for the damage inflicted on these colonized nations? To what extent does monetary reparations account for?

I would say that historically, the main justification for colonial control over any nation was the belief that one nation (or it’s people, or both for that matter) are superior to another nation. Colonizing nations often used scientific racism and/or eugenics as a way to try and argue for the fact that they were “helping” the other nation. I still remember that picture in which skulls of different races were being compared and supposedly, the white person had the “best skull” and therefore this random study (that is not scientific at all, mind you) was used to explain why racism was not wrong. Imperialistic ideals that support colonial control gain their support from similar ideologies of one nation being superior over another.

In situations of colonialism, the main benefitter of the situation is the person doing the colonizing (and often also those that are working with the colonizer). For example, in the excerpt it stated that after King Leopold declared that all “vacant” land was “property of the state,” he “treated both vacant and non vacant land as his property, claiming a right to all its products.” This shows how a colonialist nation could use its power over the colonized nation to gain benefits for themselves, in this case the benefit was land and all the raw materials on the land. As stated, King Leopold was able to gain control over all of these “products” for his own profit. As expected, the colonized nation did not receive many (or any) benefits in return for him coming and taking away their land and goods. It was even said that since he himself couldn’t “exploit the entire territory,” he resorted to leasing out the land to private companies for more profit instead. The colonized nation in these circumstances receive oppression, cruelty, and maybe a few technological ideas in return. The common people of the colonized nation are the main victims in these situations, as they are the laborers.

I personally believe that even though the events described in this excerpt are literally horrifying, they describe a norm of colonialism. As sad as it is to say, colonialism has almost always been accompanied with cruelty and oppression towards the colonized. The harvest of rubber is just one example of the many ways colonialists took advantage of the people of a nation that could not defend itself against the horrors of colonialism. Another example in history that can be compared to Congo’s colonization is the colonization of the Americas and the Natives. Indigenous people were also faced with extreme cruelty and were also taken advantage of by a larger nation in order to exploit them for labor. Forced labor (slavery) is a common theme in colonialism throughout history, so despite the numerous inhumane instances described in the excerpt, I would sadly have to say that they can still be considered the norm for colonialism.

Colonialism played an incredibly large role in the development of African nations even to this day, especially with how much it impacted the social and economic lives of those living there. Colonialists like King Leopold usually focused on harvesting raw materials from these nations. This would leave little to nothing behind for the actual people of the nation to profit for themselves. Additionally, following the arrival of colonialists is also their beliefs. This plays a drastic role in the development of a nation’s social life as it directly affects their culture as well (almost like syncretism but more forced). I believe that although nothing can really reverse the effects of colonialism, it is still important for a colonialist nation to admit its faults and the fact that it was wrong to colonize another nation. Reparations should also be paid in order to try and amend the extreme economic damage these colonialists did to these colonized nations.

To answer milklover777’s question, I believe the best way to educate new generations on the horrors of colonialism is to simply tell them the truth of what happened. Spread awareness and explain the ways in which colonialism is inhumane. Use present day examples to showcase the long term effects of colonialism and make sure to recognize the lack of compensation that colonized nations got even after all their suffering. Recognize the selfish reasons for colonization and argue against misconceptions about the reason for colonialism (aka make sure it is understood that colonialism happened for selfish reasons).

As for my question to the next person, how would you suggest a colonialist nation should “apologize” for its past? Monetary reparations are already an idea, but if you had to picture an apology from say, King Leopold, what would one say? What could you even say?

The majority of justifications presented for colonial control over any nation usually involve manifest destiny, social Darwinism, and other methods that establish a superiority complex for the colonialist nation. By simply looking at how colonized nations have been limited and abused throughout history, there is clearly no sound justification for the invasion and colonization of territories by any world power. These world powers control the narrative about race and form a hierarchy that benefits them, which allows them to present colonization as socially acceptable.

The main things the colonialist nation gets from the arrangement are natural resources, manpower to harvest those resources or for a military force, and a new market to sell products from the colonialist nation. A sense of power and prestige accompanies the colonization of territories, which would bolster the colonialist nation’s global reputation. There may be some diffusion of culture and technology from the colonizer to the colonized, which could develop the colonized peoples’ culture. However, in most instances, the colonized nation becomes economically reliant on the colonialist nation and is not able to expand their economy beyond the natural resources that the colonialist nation exploits. The colonialist nation often abuses its power over the territory, shown in the reading by King Leopold made it so he could use all of the land of the Kongo for profit and his benefit, while claiming that only vacant land is his property.

The reading describes a range of aspects of colonialism, highlighting the most gruesome violations of human decency. It is clear that the perils of colonialism, and what a person unfamiliar with it would see as the most extreme aspects, promptly became the norm, since the reading describes how the white men assigned in the Kongo became desensitized to the brutal methods of punishment and the dangerous work since it was so commonplace during the colonization of the Kongo. The end of the reading shows that the most inhuman group in this situation was ironically the white men, with the language they used to describe African people being placed back on them. The fact that severed hands were used to keep track of dead African people would leave the idea of the white officials being cannibals as not so far-fetched.

The colonization of Africa has limited the growth of so many civilizations, and instead focused all their efforts on a few select raw materials, leading to a limited economy and stagnation. An even more pervasive effect of this colonization is the view of Africa from developed countries like the U.S.. Africa is portrayed in the media as wholly inferior, a “no man’s land”, crippled by severe lack of resources and violence, which is largely the result of the invasion by developed countries. The colonization of Africa has also solidified a dynamic between the colonized peoples of Africa and the white man. As seen in the reading, brutal methods of punishment like the chicotte whippings became associated with white colonial occupation, and therefore this was what the colonized people could always expect from them. This dynamic seems to be one of the most widespread effects, taking its roots in many places where people don't even notice. The colonizing nations have the responsibility of addressing and compensating in some way for the long-term effects of colonization, the ones that might not be as clear to the common people.

To answer the previous question, imagining an apology for the long lasting effects of colonialism on Africa with only words is very difficult. It would be important for someone like King Leopold to acknowledge his abuse of power and the detrimental effects that his actions have had on the development of the Kongo. However, I feel that a spoken apology would not be very meaningful, as colonial rulers have always used their words to downplay their actions and justify the treatment of the colonized peoples by appealing to various sides of the debate, like the religious side with the concept of manifest destiny, or the scientific side with social Darwinism.

A question I would like to pose is, how might colonizing powers address and compensate for the social ramifications of the colonization of Africa?

1. There is no valid justification for colonial control over any nation. There are a lot of reasons nations colonized other countries, but none of them are valid, righteous, or justifiable. The most common reason was for material gain. There were lots of rubber in the Congo, cotton and spices in India, a bunch of goods that european countries wanted their hands on. Competition was also a big motivator for colonization. European countries never wanted to fall behind their neighboring countries in terms of wealth or territory. When one country got themselves a colony, everyone else felt they needed to pick up the pace. Another motivator was religion. Spain was especially focused on spreading Christianity. We see that impact in the Philippines. European countries felt the need to spread Christianity because, to them, being Christian was directly tied to being civilized. “The White Man’s Burden” is the idea that it is “the white man”’s duty to civilize the “savage” foreign nations. That idea was spread to make this scramble for resources seem more righteous. None of the motivators I described are righteous.
2. The benefits for the colonialist far outweigh the benefits for the colony. Colonialists got resources, slaves and soldiers. The people of the colonialist countries would likely argue that it was the other way around, that the colonies get all the benefits. The benefits they would likely list would be all based around bringing introducing “civilization” and “morality” to the “savage people”. Those benefits aren’t real. The natives of the colonies were often more morally sound than most white europeans. They don’t need Christianity to be good people. They don’t need to do exactly what white people do to be civilized. For example, in a portion “King Leopold’s Ghost”, the story of Kongolese rebels is told. These rebels were firm on only killing white men that wronged them. They let a white priest they captured live. The colonized didn’t need anyone meddling with their lives, they were already civil and moral. The white man would see a different way of living, and call it primitive and uncivil.
3. The perils of colonialism are especially highlighted by Hochschild’s text. We’re actually given perspectives and stories and disgusting details, instead of big ideas. That allows for more feeling. Stories like A disgusting detail like the “Mountain of Severed Hands”, just gives you a glimpse of the mistreatment. I learned about how the hands were cut off from Kongolese people who didn’t collect enough rubber for the day in AP world history, but I never knew how there was a whole mountain of severed hands. It makes me feel the magnitude of the mistreatment. “Leopold’s Ghost” highlights the norms of colonialism as well. Almost every colonialist nation tried to force people to convert to Catholicism. Almost every colonialist nation bought slaves from their colonies. But get to see examples of the “how”, in “Leopold’s Ghost”.
4. The long term effects of colonialism are that european countries are much further ahead economically than any of the colonized countries. No colony, after being decolonized, went directly back to their norm. There was always civil unrest and instability. I think every colonizing nation has a responsibility to do their best to leave and not meddle with their former colonies further. They should try their best to remove their presence in any way shape or form, and only help when help is asked for.
5. JnjerAle asked, “how would you suggest a colonialist nation should “apologize” for its past? Monetary reparations are already an idea, but if you had to picture an apology from say, King Leopold, what would one say? What could you even say?” My answer is, in terms of apologizing with words, one could try their best to describe the atrocities committed by the colonialist nation. Of course words can only go so far. I can’t imagine King Leopold giving an apology.
6. My question is, do you think if colonialist nations hadn’t hindered the natural growth of the countries in Africa and Asia, would those countries over time become economically comparable to countries in Europe? Like how much potential do you think there was with those countries?

There is no possible justification for colonial control over any nation. However, when colonization was at its peak in the early 1800s-1900s, people colonized seemingly “inferior” countries and civilizations because they wanted to make themselves look “superior”. Through conquest and colonization, countries rose to the top by determining how much land they owned compared to others. Usually, colonial control is selfish and not for the benefit of the people but for more so the country as a whole, for their ego and to feed their greed. As we saw from the continent of Africa map we colored in class, most of the territory that has colonial control are those with more poc. These territories are usually controlled by European countries in an attempt to show their power compared to other countries.

In general, for both parties as a whole, there aren't any benefits for colonialism. However, when you compare both sides, the colonists usually benefit the most. This is obvious because of the economic and social gain the colonists nation in charge earns from having colonial control over developing countries. Those who suffer from colonial control do not benefit. As I read the excerpt from Adam Hochschild, King Leopold’s Ghost I noticed that this trend of ONLY colonists benefiting is evident here too, it's clear that they prospered economically from the land and its people. They used the people of Kongo as slaves (as many colonists do) and labor. They took their land and exploited the resources such as ivory on it too as if Kongo nor its people didn't matter to them (because they didn't). Once ivory became a commonality though, they began to exploit their resource of rubber too. There has forever been an ongoing trend where colonizers viewed and treated African people and colonized people or immigrants as savages. This resembles how Asians in America were also portrayed in the same, though they were not treated as horribly, the idea of them being “uncivil monsters” runs through the roots of many of these conquests and countries. This also stems back to way earlier times during various revolutions when they used people for their own gain and benefit, disregarding how much suffering they were going through. The colonized nation doesn't receive as much as a benefit, if any. They more so just suffer in general. Though they are oftentimes tricked they are learning and benefitting from the colonists through the teachings of religions, technology, or ideas in general, but they usually are the ones to suffer and lose the most in the end.

The reading from Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost just showed the norms or has been viewed as normalized about colonization. Throughout our educational careers, we always hear about colonists exploiting and/or taking advantage of people and resources and the land that they colonized. This excerpt just showed the realities of it describing how women were raped, people were used for harsh labor, people being tortured, and even kids being involved and dying from the dangerous conditions that they were forced to be in just so they could covert to Catholicism. Violence rose and people from every generation lost their lives as a result of colonial control further proving how the colonized usually don’t benefit from the colonization. All of these themes though unfortunately are patterns throughout history and it’s not something new that we haven’t seen displayed before from other countries.

The short term effects of colonization of Africa on the development of nations on the continent and their status today are the immediate results and reactions which branched from the colonization. People died and their communities were changed. The long term effects are not as simple though. These colonialzations are a result of greed and selfishness. This radiates throughout many European countries today and the lingering racist or derogatory opinions of Africa still remain because of it. Those who think of Africa as lowly, are mostly because that idea was passed down by generations of colonists. Africa’s development slowed down because of this colonial control and this is clear as Africa today holds some of the world’s poorest countries. Nations struggled to pick themselves back up after their resources and people were exploited for a long time. The countries who colonized those in the past though, are usually one of the most economically and technologically advanced civilizations. This is the unfortunate reality that we have to live with despite how unjust it is. Colonizing nations have a responsibility to give economic and social support to the countries and people that have previously colonized even though colonialism has ended. This can be done through donations and government authority advocating or providing military support so they can protect themselves. There is no way to reverse the actions of the past, but they should be mending them to support and provide a better future.

In response to the question asked by Drakefan02, if colonists nations did not disrupt the natural growth of the countries in Africa and Asia, I do believe that overtime they would have been economically successful. I can’t determine whether or not they would thrive more than countries in Europe, but I do believe there was a LOT of potential with these countries. All people come from Africa and we were advancing through the resources on that continent. If those resources were never exploited by colonist nations, people in Africa would have been able to use them themselves and make incredible technological and economic advancements that benefit them. Through trade too, they would’ve prospered if their people and land were never conquered and taken advantage of.

For my question, do you think the effects of colonization have anything to do with the white nationalist personalities we see in America today?