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!

Some people could claim that they are helping the nations they forcefully took control of. Leaders would say that those they conquered were uncivilized, needed saving from Hell by converting, or were relying on civilized people to “fix” them. Of course, none of these justifications were true. It was a mix of racism and wanting to be the white savior that gave the Europeans the idea that their presence was needed. Working in the Congo also offered a chance for a rise in status for white European men, which was partially why Leopold was so successful. Though they often died of diseases or mutiny, they made extreme sums of money and won awards, sometimes for how many Africans they had killed or for their quotas of ivory.

There are no benefits to colonialism for the oppressed. Though they may say otherwise, the only reason a colonialist nation colonized another is because they want something from them. The colonialist nation can gain natural resources, slaves, agricultural land, and significant influences from conquering another. Someone from a colonialist nation, such as King Leopold, would say that the “savages” gain education, God, and new opportunities to work. For example, King Leopold claimed that his hunt for ivory was not for money, but to help ease the idleness of the African people. However, he deployed troops and investment funds to close any businesses in the Congo that he did not make a profit from, and African people were banned from making transactions with money. He also offered money and awards, such as the Order of Lion, to African soldiers who served him loyally, forcing them to kill and imprison their own people.

The events described in King Leopold’s Ghost are horrifying, but accurately depict the norm. The stories come from many different sources, including Leopold’s officials. Accounts of the deadly porter jobs most people did, often without payment, come from both sides. One of the kings men stated that government officials were not ashamed to “come by our station and abduct our school girls”. Stories from locals verified by soldiers told that women slaves had their babies ripped from their arms and thrown to the side of the road to die, all so that they would be able to carry more goods. Orphaned children were also taken by missionaries to be raised as soldiers in white-run schools. This atrocity is proof of the little knowledge the invaders had of local customs. They would kill a child’s parents and decide it was an orphan, but this concept did not exist to the people of the Congo because in their tight knit communities, everyone took care of everyone. Leopold and his men viewed the African people as less than human. They were unafraid to write gruesomely truthful reports and to kill people for fun, which is evidence that the stories are true. Some reports even say that they smoked and ate the flesh of people they had killed. There are so many similar stories that it is impossible to ignore their significance, the Belgians committed atrocities with pride, and the Congolese experienced them in horror. As Borrisson states in the reading, “it is strange that people who claim to be civilized think that they can treat their fellow man - even though he is of a different color - any which way”.

Short-term, the colonization of Africa displaced thousands of people, separated families, and caused countless deaths. The long-term effects are the racism and lack of knowledge that people have about Africa. Africa is often referred to as if it is a country, the people from its 54 countries are grouped into one category. I’ve seen so many TikTok videos that contain people living in Africa replying to comments made by white people such as “how do you blow-dry your hair without electricity” and “you must be really rich if you live in a house”. With all of the hate that people from Africa and their descendants get, the nations who put them in that situation have a duty to try to make things right. It is shameful that these events happened within the last couple hundred years, yet to know the details you need to be in a history class. They should supply funds for developing countries and provide aid for those who need it. They should show the beauty and culture of Africa and not just talk about crime and poverty. The crimes they committed should be recognized publicly and not be locked away in textbooks.

Question: Do you think that the Congolese men who served on the Force Publique actually felt appreciated by the Belgian army? Some of the soldiers were handed awards from Leopold himself, why did he do this if he was so obviously racist through his other actions?

RPossible justifications for colonial control over a nation can include the belief that the colonizer is bringing civilization and Christianity to "uncivilized" or "heathen" peoples, as well as the desire for economic gain and resources. In the case of King Leopold's Congo, the Belgian king justified his colonization by claiming that he was "civilizing" the Congo and ending the slave trade, but his goal was primarily to exploit the Congo's resources for economic gain.

There can be benefits to colonialism for the colonizer nation, such as access to resources, markets, and labor. In King Leopold's Congo, the Belgian king and his companies profited greatly from the rubber trade, which was made possible by the forced labor of the people of Congo. However, these benefits were almost exclusively for the colonizer, while the colonized nation suffered greatly from the lack of access to resources to trade, as well as the resource tax by the colonizer nation. The people were subjected to brutal treatment, including forced labor, torture, and murder. They also experienced loss of land, culture, and autonomy.

The reading from Adam Hochschild's King Leopold's Ghost is indicative of the extremes of colonialism. The atrocities committed in the Congo were particularly atrocious, with millions of people dying as a result of their treatment. The exploitation of the Congo's resources for the benefit of the Belgian king and his companies, while the Congolese people suffered greatly, is a clear example of the worst excesses of colonialism.

In the short-term, this led to the forced labor, exploitation of resources, and displacement of indigenous populations. Further into the future they ran into more issues, such as the borders drawn by colonial powers not taking into account ethnic and cultural divisions, leading to ongoing conflicts and tension between different groups. The colonial powers also imposed their own systems of governance, which often did not align with traditional systems, and this has led to ongoing political instability and corruption in many African nations. Additionally, the economic policies imposed by the colonizers, such as the extraction of resources and the suppression of local industries, have left many African countries dependent on a single commodity, making them vulnerable to economic fluctuations.

Responding to Martha $tewart, I do think that some of them felt appreciated, but that it was a false sense of security in their current positions/jobs.

Question: Stripping the valuable natural assets of these countries obviously made them more prone to disaster. Do you think that the current political situations of any struggling African countries be any different if they had more resources to compete in the international markets?

There are no justifications for colonial control over any nation. If a nation needs help, they can send help but there is no need for them to have colonial control over the nation. Most justified their colonial control as it being their duty to help civilize the people of that land. Which I find ridiculous.

When it comes to the benefit of colonialism, the colonialist nation gets more benefit than the colonized. This is because the colonialist nation will always exploit the colonized nation. They will set up churches to get people to convert, use the colonized nation’s people as free laborers and take all the nation’s natural resources. For the colonized nation under all this exploitation, they get better improved infrastructure, education and medicine. They can also be under the protection of a powerful nation. But this is not even guaranteed because the colonialist nation can just pick up and run when danger approaches in the colonized nation.

From reading Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost I was shocked by how horrifying colonization was. I knew colonization had many bad things associated with it but I didn’t know that the people of the colonized nation were treated in such a horrifying way. The colonized nation’s people were treated like slaves, they were placed in heavy chains. The colonialist nation gave no regard to them as humans and treated them as replaceable parts. The brutality was much worse than of slavery in America. It got so bad, that King Leopold declared the end of slavery, but all of these people were basically slaves. They started these people "volunteers" but they people that were kidnapped and forcefully put to work. But this was the norm for people during then. As seen from the reading, we get many perspectives from people in Congo, people were not afraid to write down the horrible deeds they did. In fact, they were proud of it. One woman that went through this described the colonialist nation as terrorizing them constantly. But another wrote how these people were just dirty uncivilized beings.

The colonization of Africa left Africa having the country borders they have today. The most prominent long-term effect it left was how people from Africa are seen. The people of Africa were tainted because of this, which leads to racism and slavery in America. Up to today, the tainted image is still there. Other effects are degradation of natural resources, introduction of foreign diseases to livestock and humans, and change of the social systems of living. This has gotten better but its effect is still visible. Another big long term effect is the loss of African culture because of the forced imposing of foreign cultures.

Question: If Africa was never colonized by the European powers, how would Africa change from how it is right now?

1. Currently, with all the knowledge that people now have about colonization, I don't think there is any real justification for it. Granted our world would look completely different without it, maybe it would've been okay because there wasn't this awful history of torment surrounding this practice. To start, colonialism is defined as acquiring some level of political control over another country, then occupying and exploiting that country. If someone had to offer justification, I'd imagine that it would have to do with believing that the colonizing nation could help the colonized nation thrive. There could be possibility for syncretism and could make something new. The overall notion of trying to catch another nation up to European global standards could be the justification. However, these justifications may be completely ruled out due to the spread of disease and the forced labor that was evident in all of these colonized nations.

2. Admittedly, there are a few benefits to colonialism. The advancement that could be gained from being colonized could turn out to be beneficial in the long run. The big three that come to mind are advancements in technology, improvements to trade infrastructure, and a greater knowledge due to an advanced education come to mind. The nation that gets colonized always gets the short end of the stick though. The colonialist nation gets almost everything out of the arrangement. The colonized nation gets whatever benefit may come from being part of a bigger nation, if there even is any benefit.

3. King Leopold's Ghost, by Adam Hochschild, shows the horrors and atrocities that are tied to colonization. The common denominator of all instances of colonization is that there are numerous exploitations and that the colonized are always oppressed. The idea of the "White Man's Burden" is common and spreads the misinformed notion that white people should manage the affairs of anyone who isn't white. The reason for this is because white people believed that if someone isn't white, then they are underdeveloped. Hochschild writes, "To Europeans, Africans were inferior beings: lazy, uncivilized, little better than animals" (Hochschild 121). These exemplifies the White Man's Burden in a single sentence. European standards were forced onto natives, no matter where they were. For the Congolese specifically, Europeans kidnapped their children to send to Catholic missionaries. Europeans also killed the parents of kids and orphaned them. This concept was completely foreign to the Congolese and ended horribly. King Leopold and the colonization of the Congo is a result of greed. Leopold had ivory raids and forced the natives into labor to collect rubber. The Congo was also turned into a command economy, giving full control of everything economic to the government.

4. The short term effects of colonization in Africa is the seemingly unlimited amount of violence and displacement. Every turn, there seems to be something new to read about in Hochschild's reading being neatly sorted into one of these categories. On top of this, numerous people were obviously exploited. No one willingly wanted to do this labor. The resources were sucked out of the Congo as well. Mass suppression of the Congolese customs, language, and culture occurred. In the long term, a common theme developed, being one of instability, both economically and politically. Borders were soft and were practically made on a whim. Even in class today, we saw how Africa was cut up. Only Liberia and Ethiopia weren't overrun by colonialism. Out of the 54 countries, only 2 remained autonomous. That's bizarre to think about.

My question: Is there a reality where Africa would be near the same place they are currently without colonialism? Was colonialism the only way to become as developed and syncretized as they are?

Originally posted by FlyingCelestialDragon on January 19, 2023 19:58

There are no justifications for colonial control over any nation. If a nation needs help, they can send help but there is no need for them to have colonial control over the nation. Most justified their colonial control as it being their duty to help civilize the people of that land. Which I find ridiculous.

When it comes to the benefit of colonialism, the colonialist nation gets more benefit than the colonized. This is because the colonialist nation will always exploit the colonized nation. They will set up churches to get people to convert, use the colonized nation’s people as free laborers and take all the nation’s natural resources. For the colonized nation under all this exploitation, they get better improved infrastructure, education and medicine. They can also be under the protection of a powerful nation. But this is not even guaranteed because the colonialist nation can just pick up and run when danger approaches in the colonized nation.

From reading Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost I was shocked by how horrifying colonization was. I knew colonization had many bad things associated with it but I didn’t know that the people of the colonized nation were treated in such a horrifying way. The colonized nation’s people were treated like slaves, they were placed in heavy chains. The colonialist nation gave no regard to them as humans and treated them as replaceable parts. The brutality was much worse than of slavery in America. It got so bad, that King Leopold declared the end of slavery, but all of these people were basically slaves. They started these people "volunteers" but they people that were kidnapped and forcefully put to work. But this was the norm for people during then. As seen from the reading, we get many perspectives from people in Congo, people were not afraid to write down the horrible deeds they did. In fact, they were proud of it. One woman that went through this described the colonialist nation as terrorizing them constantly. But another wrote how these people were just dirty uncivilized beings.

The colonization of Africa left Africa having the country borders they have today. The most prominent long-term effect it left was how people from Africa are seen. The people of Africa were tainted because of this, which leads to racism and slavery in America. Up to today, the tainted image is still there. Other effects are degradation of natural resources, introduction of foreign diseases to livestock and humans, and change of the social systems of living. This has gotten better but its effect is still visible. Another big long term effect is the loss of African culture because of the forced imposing of foreign cultures.

Question: If Africa was never colonized by the European powers, how would Africa change from how it is right now?

I feel as if Africa would be much more populated, due to there being no atrocities or killings by the European powers. I'm not entirely sure how well it would stack up to the rest of the globe, but I think it may be more well known? Taking what we learned about in class the past few days, very little know the countries in Africa. That may change if it was never colonized and could make a name for itself.

There is no justification for taking colonial control over a peaceful nation. In the hyper-specific example were there is a hostile nation whose government is actively committing atrocities against a another nation or its own people, then it would be reasonable for another nation to briefly assume colonial control over said nation in order to restructure the government. That scenario, however, is extremely unlikely to play out in the best way, as why would a nation willingly give up physical territory from and economic influence over a hostile government it has just acquired? The vast majority of the benefits of colonialism go to the colonizer nation, as they gain access to resources, labor, and land for their people to settle. Although there are some small benefits for the colonized nation (cultural exchange, trade, different technology), the loss of independence for the people completely outweighs what meager benefits colonization can provide. Although the norms of colonialism were inherently awful, the utter brutality of King Leopold's direct reign over the Congo was particularly vile. The Congo was different than all other European colonies in Africa in that it was privately owned by the King of Belgium, so the Belgian Congress had virtually no say in what went on inside the colony. Leopold normalized the use of a brutal---often fatal---whipping as punishment for even the most minor offenses. This allowed the monsters in his administration to do something they enjoyed, and the ordinary person to stand around and watch it happen. The most obvious short-term impact of colonialism in Africa was the newly-appointed colonial authority over colonized peoples. Foreign cultures and laws were imposed upon people who had traditions that were thousands of years old, leading to a slow and painful destruction of many African cultures. The cultures which did survive colonialism were forever scarred by the generational trauma of colonialism, and many regions of Africa are politically unstable as a direct result of colonizer nations predisposing many nations to authoritarian rule. Colonizer nations owe colonized nations reparations at the bear minimum, although nothing can truly make up for the erasure of entire cultures.

Do you notice any similarities between how Belgians in the Congo reacted to seeing Congolese people being whipped right in front of them and how US immigration officers and officials reacted to the separation of migrant families at the border?

Originally posted by FlyingCelestialDragon on January 19, 2023 19:58

There are no justifications for colonial control over any nation. If a nation needs help, they can send help but there is no need for them to have colonial control over the nation. Most justified their colonial control as it being their duty to help civilize the people of that land. Which I find ridiculous.

When it comes to the benefit of colonialism, the colonialist nation gets more benefit than the colonized. This is because the colonialist nation will always exploit the colonized nation. They will set up churches to get people to convert, use the colonized nation’s people as free laborers and take all the nation’s natural resources. For the colonized nation under all this exploitation, they get better improved infrastructure, education and medicine. They can also be under the protection of a powerful nation. But this is not even guaranteed because the colonialist nation can just pick up and run when danger approaches in the colonized nation.

From reading Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost I was shocked by how horrifying colonization was. I knew colonization had many bad things associated with it but I didn’t know that the people of the colonized nation were treated in such a horrifying way. The colonized nation’s people were treated like slaves, they were placed in heavy chains. The colonialist nation gave no regard to them as humans and treated them as replaceable parts. The brutality was much worse than of slavery in America. It got so bad, that King Leopold declared the end of slavery, but all of these people were basically slaves. They started these people "volunteers" but they people that were kidnapped and forcefully put to work. But this was the norm for people during then. As seen from the reading, we get many perspectives from people in Congo, people were not afraid to write down the horrible deeds they did. In fact, they were proud of it. One woman that went through this described the colonialist nation as terrorizing them constantly. But another wrote how these people were just dirty uncivilized beings.

The colonization of Africa left Africa having the country borders they have today. The most prominent long-term effect it left was how people from Africa are seen. The people of Africa were tainted because of this, which leads to racism and slavery in America. Up to today, the tainted image is still there. Other effects are degradation of natural resources, introduction of foreign diseases to livestock and humans, and change of the social systems of living. This has gotten better but its effect is still visible. Another big long term effect is the loss of African culture because of the forced imposing of foreign cultures.

Question: If Africa was never colonized by the European powers, how would Africa change from how it is right now?

If Africa was never colonized by the European powers, the entire continent would immediately be far more economically prosperous than it is now. Beyond that, however, it is extremely hard to tell what would actually happen. Africa never had a proper industrial revolution, and how the different cultures of the continent would react to that would be a major part of how an non-colonized Africa would function.

I think back then a possible justification for there to be colonial control over any nation would just be to prove that one is the superior race for example when the Belgians took control of the Democratic Republic of the Congo just to probe their nation's power and honor, and another reason why it might be ok to have colonial control over any nation is that if they are to replace a corrupt government and make the people in the country happy. In King Leopold's case, colonialism was definitely beneficial because he was able to attract other people's capital for his own investments and he came up with more than half of the proceeds.They are also able to control who you want to deal with and trade with for example when the Dutch trading firm was another competitor for ivory in Congo King Leopold had Congo state officials stop their boats and they even had to use guns just because he was not profiting off their trades. Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost definitely details the extremes of colonialism because there was one instance where some kids were laughing next to a white man and they were given 50 whippings with a chicotte made out of hippotamus hide that left permanent scars on the body. The short term result of colonization is that the people are being exploited and used just for their labor and a long term affect is that the countries have become difficult to recall.

Answer: I don't think that the Congolese men who served on the Force Publique felt appreciated by the Belgian army, because just look ho harsh they treat kids just because they were laughing by a white men. I think that the awards that Leopold gave up was like a cover up to show that he wasn't as racist as everyone thought he was.

question: If Great Britain and France never colonized in Africa what affect would it have on it's future or would it just stay the same?

There are never any justifications for colonial control over any nation. All that the push for colonization is just pure greed. Colonial control is all for a one sided benefit, power and control. Although there can never and will never be a justification for colonialism there is benefit. As mentioned before, the benefit posed is totally and completely one sided as it benefits the “mother country” by simply robbing the colonized countries of goods, services and sometimes people. The colonizing country gets money from everything they strip from the countries they colonize. On the other end though, the colonized nations that are having everything taken from them get nothing in return. Sometimes the colonized places are “promised” things like protection and some kind of trade but it is never what could ever be deemed as fair by any standards. The picture that was painted in the reading was most certainly the extremes of colonialism. However, is it really an extreme if this is something that has been long perpetuated time and time again in colonization? To me the first red flag in the “tactics” that were used by Leopold was that George Washington, who was a slave holder himself, had said that the porters working for Leopold were slaves. Additionally, something that Leopold had done was to set up places for the children to go (schools would be a stretch of a word to use here) and by doing this created total control of everyone, old and young and installed the norm of colonization into the younger generations. Although we, or at least I, see this as such a horrific thing, it is something that our own country has done Native American children. The long term and short term effects of colonialism on the continent of Africa are still heard and seen today. One of the biggest is that Africa is a place of great social and political instability. Colonization had such a large role in this by seeing these places as controllable, setting up boundaries that didn’t align with the tribal lines creating its own problems by doing that but then just leaving when things got bad. Aside from that, these places are still seen as very disposable and usable as they are still used for their labor, materials and land. The former ruling countries most certainly are responsible for the downfall of the continent as it was them who came in and created this and left when the going got tough.

To answer this question: “Do you notice any similarities between how Belgians in the Congo reacted to seeing Congolese people being whipped right in front of them and how US immigration officers and officials reacted to the separation of migrant families at the border?” yes, I do see similarities. As we looked at in class the effects of what children and adults are seeing at the US border is so traumatizing and life altring. Although it may not be whipping right in front of them, the trama and scars that are left behind from the US border are comparable.

Question: should the colonizing countries have to pay any type of reparations to the countries they colonized or really take any responsibility or accountability in any way for the things they did and how is the world really letting this be swept under the rug so swiftly.

A possible “justification” for colonial control over a nation is if that said nation’s government was abusing its power and mass-genociding its citizens. From that standpoint, I can see how some countries would want to intervene. HOWEVER, in reality, colonialism goes much deeper than just intervention. We’ve seen this again and again with the United States, Great Britain, Spain, etc. The countries who use the excuse of “saving” as their justification for colonial control often grow greedy over that piece of land and end up taking full control of the native people living there. For example, King Leopold swore up and down that he’s saving the Congo people, but what he’s really after is their ivory. The Europeans see these native people as “uncivilized” and “savages who need salvation”, basically those below the white race. From there, “good” colonialism eventually turns dark and twisted, so I believe that whatever justification they had for colonizing in the first place will never end up benefiting the colonized countries.

This brings us to the second question: there is truly no benefits to colonialism for the colonized. Sure, the Europeans might end up getting some profits, but that’s because they exploit the people indigenous to the land they colonized. Those people are forced into labor for meager wages (sometimes no wages at all), are treated worse than animals, and they also lose their cultures through assimilation. Sure, some of the higher ranking officials did get rich from colonialism, but that accounted for less than 5% of the country. Most of the people who suffered were the poor common people.

After reading Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost, I can fully say with my whole chest that I’m glad that guy is dead. King Leopold, someone who basically had no power in his own court, found perverse enjoyment being the “King-Sovereign” of the Congo. He claims he had no interest in money, yet he treats the Congolese like slaves and allow his soldiers to do whatever, from assaulting women to whipping and killing villagers. He didn’t even spare the children. They were forcefully separated from their family, sent off to Catholic schools, and when they were old enough he assembled them into his own little army without their consent. This is not just the extremes of colonialism, this is near insanity. He and his soldiers committed every crime against humanity and had the gall to claim that Congolese people were dirty, less educated, lazy, + many other negative associations. I’m genuinely appalled.

Colonization definitely had A LOT of long term effects on Africa. For one, it definitely instilled a lot of internalized racism in Africans. There are multiple accounts of African people (who recently immigrated to the U.S.) hating on African Americans for being “ghetto” and “unrefined” and such, something made up by white men to demean African Americans. We too are also affected by the eurocentric way of thinking, even if we don’t realize it ourselves. (I think that map activity proved enough though..). Secondly, many countries now, not just African countries, are still suffering from the effects of colonialism. Polluted cities, high rates of poverty, lost natural resources. How can you expect people to thrive in these circumstances? That’s why many want to come to America for better opportunities. Yet, Americans (+Europeans) shun immigrants for wanting to escape the hell that colonizers have created. We can’t expect sudden change at once, but if Europe truly felt sorry for their past actions, the LEAST they could do is provide shelter for these people.

Responding to palmtreepuppy: I think that colonizing countries should definitely pay some kind of reparations, but not just in the form of money. I mean how much money can they possibly give to help the MILLIONS of struggling people in these countries. The best solution right now would be to extend open arms to those fleeing perilous situations at home, address racism and xenophobia INSIDE their own country, and in addition, do pay some amount of money to the colonized. You did exploit and steal their natural resources for centuries after all.

My question is: The comparison between Leopold’s soldiers and the Nazis was pretty interesting. What do you think is the main reason for this type of “numbness” or “apathy” for fellow human beings?

There is no possible justification for colonial control. While the perpetrators of colonization will make claims stating that they are developing the nation or even saving them through a strong religious connotation, these are simply fronts to attempt at shutting out opposition, making economic exploitation easier for them. Throughout history it has become increasingly evident that colonies are not left stronger than they were prior to colonization. Colonization is primarily devastating to the native cultures of the nations that are being exploited, but is also devastating in almost every other facet of a society. The only possible benefit that could possibly be twisted into a “good” light might be the access to global networks that a colonized nation may not have had beforehand, but after being endlessly exploited by its “parent” nation, being exposed to a global network simply adds more vulnerability to a society.

There are many benefits to colonialism. That is at least what any imperial country will say. The nations that do the colonizing generally make huge economic profits from colonization. They excavate all of the precious metals from a land, absolutely decimating the environment, and they do all of it for the low cost of oppressing a group of people. The best part for the colonizer is that they generally view all of the people of the nation they are taking over as a simple commodity, meaning that they do not need to treat them humanely, which further increases their profits even more. Now, what are the benefits for the colonized nation? The main benefit that comes to mind is the potential for a discreet acknowledgement from the colonizer, most commonly in the form of a small plaque that is strategically put in a position where it is maximally obscured, so as not to distract the potential tourists that might be venturing through. Realistically, there have been some benefits for the colonized country in very zoomed in ways, but I think it is a large injustice to point out potential positives when the much greater, horrible atrocities of colonization have not been given the proper attention.

The most important factor that allows colonizers to be so cruel to the human beings that they are exploiting is their method of removing their humanity. In the reading it is stated clearly that Europeans viewed Africans as inferior beings: “lazy, uncivilized, little better than animals.” By using extremely derogatory rhetoric and propaganda, European colonizers (as well as the United States) were able to play into this idea of “the white man’s burden”, in an attempt to twist the narrative that any cruel treatment was actually helping to “civilize” a group of people. In the reading there are many examples of the reality of colonization and the horrible inhumanness including the “patient” who was put on a dissecting table while he was still alive and the cruel murder of a man who had supposedly stolen a rifle. Another example of the language used that demonstrates how these people were treated not as people but simply as an economic tool for their colonizer is when it says “Monsieur Devos furnished us with five prisoners, tied by the neck.” I believe that just from this reading alone, it is clear that no amount of potential “benefit” of colonialism for a colonized nation can make up for or even come close to justifying the devastation that is brought upon societies from an individual and group perspective.

I think that the short-term effects of colonization in Africa was that it crippled cultures and left very little opportunity for growth. It traumatized many peoples which can still be felt through generations and generations, and made many nations even more vulnerable to be exploited by others. The long-term effects are that the stagnation of many of these nations caused by colonization created immense instability and underdevelopment in relation to the industrial powers of the world.

My question: Is the greed for economic power through colonization a phenomenon unique to Western culture or is it universal among any rapidly expanding nation?

Answer to Steely Gibbs: I believe that without European colonization Africa would be much more stable politically, economically, and culturally than it is today. Although this may have taken a very different form without the influence of Western culture, I do not think that colonization has produced a sort of “net positive”.

The European colonies that colonized Africa thought of the Africans as less human, savage, and uncivilized. They thought that by colonizing Africa they were helping the African people become "civilized". In reality, the Europeans were power hungry and wanted to have more control and gain more money by using Africans as laborers and slaves and not paying them, gaining even more profit themselves.

As a result of colonialism, there are benefits for the European colonizers, but there are drawbacks for the colonized Africans. The colonized nation in charge gains free labor and more profit, which gives them more power. They also obtain more land to harvest resources from, i.e. crops, as well as other natural resources not available in Europe. The colonized nation, who had their own way of living established before the colonizers intruded, were backtracked and had to rebuild their society. A lot of Africans were used to carry loads for long periods of time, and many times, none of them survived. The boarders that the African people had set were changed to accommodate for the land that the European colonizers claimed, and tribes and groups were broken up.

The events described in Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost is indicative of the norm of colonization. The European colonizers enslaved the African people in their homeland and used them to make profit for Europe. The African people were forced into labor, and were beaten very badly when they questioned authority or made the white men angry. A chicotte was used to beat the African laborers, which left permanent scars and enough whips could be fatal, which was not uncommon. The people who used the chicotte said that they got used to using it, and didn't empathize with the people who were being whipped. The chicottes were also used to convince the white people to see that the Africans were less than human, and don't deserve empathy. When uprising happened, the reaction was to kill all of the rebels if they could not be controlled. In one instance where a group of rebels took refuge in a cave, and when they couldn't be controlled, they were killed and all evidence of the bodies were destroyed.

The short terms effects of the colonization in Africa are the countless deaths and displacements that occurred, and cultures that were ruined. The long term effects of the colonization in Africa are that it left people thinking, even today, that Africans are uncivilized, savages, and inferior to Western societies, and Africa is not as developed as other countries. A lot of people don't know about the different cultures and groups in Africa and tend to categorize all Africans in one group. The colonizers tore down the societies that the Africans had already made before the colonization, and they had to rebuild it, which pushed them behind other developing societies in the world, and the exploitation of the resources from the land left Africa financially and economically vulnerable.

Question: Why do you think countries resort to colonizing and destroying societies to gain more power?

Answer to Snailaligator: I think that greed for economic power through colonization is not a phenomenon unique to Western culture, Western countries have just had enough power to colonize larger territories farther away, so it seems more common with Western culture. Throughout history, many countries have fought to conquer more land and gain more power, but it is usually neighboring regions, or regions that are not far away from the motherland. Compared to other continents, Europe is small, and the only way to gain more land is to go farther away and colonize groups that might be across the globe. Other countries farther west to Europe, like the US gained a lot of power, but they also originated from powerful European countries.

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.

Response to previous Question: I would say that greed is probably the clearest motivator for colonization. Many countries, as well as the corporations within them, engaged in colonization for access to more land and resources. They probably also sought access to a labor force that was not protected by regulations, as workers in several European countries had unionized and/or gained better labor rights by this time period.

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?

1. Throughout history, people have tried to justify colonial control over nations, and it has been done with various justifications. Justifications have included the belief in the cultural and racial superiority of the colonizers, the spread of the christian faith, and the urge to for national expansion and world domination. Some of this statement is true as religion did spread into these colonies and had a positive impact on some who attempted to follow along with it. However many intellectuals also argue that these justifications, are largely unjust and are extremely oppressive towards inferior groups, mainly militarily. The extraction of resources from a suppressed group of people for the benefit of the wealthy class of society, can never and will never be justifiable. As of today, it is widely agreed that colonialism was a violation of humans rights and it also took away centuries of autonomy that these inferior countries were somewhat accustomed to before the colonial era.

2. Colonialism has many benefits like access to an abundant amount of natural resources such as land, raw materials, and labor, as well as the ability to unjustly exploit markets in a colonized nation. Besides an economic gain, colonizers are also able to easily spread their cultural and religious beliefs upon their conquered subjects. For example, in Spain, after the colonization of Latin America, the Christian religion cemented itself as the biggest belief system in the world. In having the religious stronghold over their subjects, they could in turn justify the complete takeover of a territory. It is also important to note that being colonized is an expensive ordeal and it usually results in a large amount of money lost for the colonized nation. Reasons include constant lost of land, resources, forced labor, economic exploitation, cultural destruction, and loss of autonomy. Overall, the colonized nations receive little to no benefit from the arrangement and they can also experience immeasurable harms as a result of being oppressed for centuries at a time.

3. Adam Hochschild's story is indicative of the norm of colonialism, ESPECIALLY IN AFRICA. The stories come from varying sources, the least of which include horrific accounts from Leopold's officials. The accounts discussed the horrific treatment of not only porter workers, but also the horrific treatment of women and children that refused to obey the unjust "law of the land". The one thing that made sense, through all the chaos that occurred in the Congo, was the motive of colonizers. Simply put, they wanted money, influence, and control, they were also clearly willing, at all costs, to destroy the lives of the people for their own economic benefit. Specific examples include the work done in porter jobs, like the large scale collecting of ivory, everyday tasks to please their European "masters", and even stuffing onto ships by the thousands each day, to travel around the territories collecting everything that was of value to the colonizers. Time and time again you also saw women and children taken hostage if tribes were unwilling to comply to the worldly demands of the colonizers. Many companies associated with the colonization process, also outcompeted existing companies in the Conogo area simply by having a larger scale model or even forcing those competitors to leave the business as a whole. As Leopold's economic gains wained in this area, you saw the same viciously cycle repeated again, only this time with rubber instead of ivory. The rebel efforts were minimal and proved to be no match against the European powerhouses of the colonial era.

4. The colonization of Africa had a profound and lasting impact on the development of nations on the continent. In the short-term, the colonial powers imposed their own political, economic, and social systems on the colonized nations, often with little regard for the existing cultures and societies. This led to the forced displacement of people, the exploitation of resources, and the suppression of local economies and cultures. In the long-term, the legacy of colonialism continues to shape the development of African nations. Many countries were left with weak political and economic systems, making it difficult for them to effectively govern and develop their economies. Additionally, the arbitrary borders created by colonial powers often left ethnic groups divided and contributed to ongoing conflicts. In terms of responsibility, the colonizing nations do have a moral and ethical responsibility to address the harm caused by colonialism and to support the development of their former colonies. This can include providing economic assistance, supporting democratic institutions, and addressing historic injustices such as the exploitation of resources and forced labor. However, the responsibility also lies on the current government and leaders of the African countries to work towards a sustainable development and address the issues that colonialism has left behind.

Question: Is enough blame put on the African elite for sometimes bargaining human beings and helping to facilitate the slave trade. In return of "lavish" European goods?