Lingering Question

After the discussion I was left puzzled over the way in which the Force Publique handled things because they were very cruel. Now, I understand that after a while the members were desensitized with the things that they were doing, but, initially, how did they respond to the terrible things they were doing? What things did the king do in order to help these members get over their inhumane acts in the beginning?

A quick though about the discussion itself: I found that the questions that people asked were posed with a specific answer in mind and only called for one person to answer for a good response.

Discussion Questions 114-139

How were items unique to the Congo and Africa innovated and used against the natives to exploit them?

Presently, in the army, a common technique to unite a platoon is to give them a common enemy, the commander. How is this common enemy, the white man, affected the African tribes? Will it have any counter effects for the Europeans?

Did Kind Leopold know/understand the power of propaganda desensitization before entering the Congo? How did his propaganda and desensitization affect the men stationed in the Congo?

Was it a good decision for Stanley to explore with men who had no experience as travelers? Why or why not?

     Stanley's decision to take with him inexperienced explorers was both beneficial and hindering.   Due to the group's lack of experience, two things happened: at times the group was very slow and a large part of the group died along the journey.  During the exploration, "it took thirty-seven days to go one stretch of thirty-four miles" (56).   The group did not have the experience needed to know how to manure difficult terrain.  Also, this inexperience made it so the group could easily succumb to "festering wounds, dysentery, smallpox, or typhus" because they did not know how to take care of themselves, which in turn caused the death toll to be "overwhelming" (56).  However, there were also benefits to choosing an inexperienced group.  First, by choosing inexperienced explorers, Stanley was able to easily shine through as the best- this was very good for his reputation and allowed him to take the credit for any discovery*.  Also, due to the large death toll, there were not many survivors to discredit any claims that Stanley made upon arrivals in his writing.  In describing Stanley's descriptions, Hoschschild uses words like "condemnations," "proclaimed," and "fulminated" (57)- because he could, Stanley became a regular user of hyperbolic statements.  Though there were cons to choosing an inexperienced group, the good that came from this was ultimately what caught the eye of King Leopold and lead to Stanley's accomplished future.

*Hence landmarks such as "Stanley Falls".

King Leopold's Ghost Section 1 Response

Response
    After reading this section of KLG, even though it is regarding the topic's most basic aspects. I was shocked.  Though facts about these events in the Congo have trickled down to me from those who have read this book, I never understood its severity.  I am also disappointed in myself, along with past teachers, that this is the first time I am truly learning about such an important event in history.
     This topic is also very interesting because in sophomore year I wrote a paper about the marginalization of the gypsy persecution- this reminds me of this due to its reach and how it is brushed over in history.
     It was very interesting too how, even though they discovered a land filled with a new culture, riches and people, European explorers were so concerned with the origins of the Congo River.  I also found it very interesting that Henry Morton Stanley was praised for what he did (not to mention trusted) despite the fact that he frequently lied and "created journal entries about a dramatic shipwreck and other adventures that never happened."

Questions
Usually imperialist influence or takeovers have an exchange of benefits between those coming in and the natives.  However, it is difficult to see what perks the Africans had from this imperialism.  So, what advantages, if any, did these African countries get from this European conquest?

Affonso wrote many letters to King Joao III and many "speeches about the horros of Kind Leopold's Congo would be given as far away as Australia.  To some extend these events were globally known.  Should other countries have helped the people in the Congo, or would it have been seen as hypocritical because they too were imperialists?  How did the economic benefits that Europe reaped from the Congo shape perceptions?

End of Class Thoughts

I would be curious to learn where the line, if there is one, between colonization and imperialism.  Though there are clear differences between the two things and they both have separate applications, there is much overlap between the two.  So, what would be an interesting thing to do would be to define the grey areas between the two.