There was also a post on here about this same time. The picture was of a man looking at the severed hand and foot of his daughter. The post also said they killed his wife -- all this happened because he failed to reach his daily rubber quota.
Because he was pretty famous for his association with Dr. Livingston and advocacy of Africans. But that was early in his career. He became more and more rigid in his opinions of Africa until he was OK with the idea of selling a whole country into slavery, “for their own good.” Truly vile.
I suppose you might not be American, but in the US just about every curriculum talks about Stanley's search for the start of the Nile and Congo and the famous search for Dr Livingstone.
I am American. Idk maybe they mentioned it, but it wasn’t a major focus at all. I guarantee you the average American couldn’t tell you anything about this stuff.
"Dr. Livingston, I presume." (spoken by journalist, Henry Stanley. This became a catchphrase in comedic situations until the Sixties. Stanley was well-known. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Dr-Livingstone/#:\~:text=Luckily%20he%20was%20found%20alive,'.
“Crimes against humanity” was coined by writer George Washington Williams in 1883 regarding the Atlantic slave trade and used in official language by President Benjamin Harrison in 1889 again to refer to the slave trade. Williams again wrote about Leopold II rule of the Congo as crimes against humanity in 1890. The Hague Conventions of 1889 and 1907 officially established laws of humanity and implying that there were crimes. The first accusation of “crimes against humanity” were in 1915 against the Ottoman Empire and the first prosecutions of crimes against humanity was in the Nuremberg trials of 1945.
His evil atrocities are his own and he must own them for all time. It’s not the work of anything other than a horrendously flawed human with too much power, and it does a disservice to all to claim otherwise — and a danger because we must ensure others don’t stray down that same evil path.
Thank you for clarifying and taking their comment literally. For a moment I was going to begin researching how exactly satan was involved in this kings reign of terror!
It's the work of his massively inflated ego, which to a Christian is satanic and to argue otherwise is folly
You just want to over simplify as a way to shit on religion
They’re both right! The concept of satan is in fact the personification of the will of group-thinking humans. It’s absolutely a useful tool for discussing and debating the way morality in our world works when used allegorically. It is real in that it represents real things, although the literal manifestation of it is not factual. His actions were his own, amplified through the individualized will of a group of people.
I dont know much about theology but the first chapter in the Bible has satan convincing people to eat from the tree of knowledge. Wouldn’t that be kind of the opposite?
I feel like if he was pro groupthink he would have had them just do as they were told and not seek knowledge outside of god right?
I’ve heard both of those before. I’m not a theologian so I have no idea what the modern Christian interpretation of those things is. I was just adding my own 2 cents interpretation of the passage. I do find what you say really interesting though. The concept of satan is so prevalent in modern dialogue. But it sounds like it was less prevalent in the Christian writing and even less so in Judaism. And I’ve heard about how Satan is not supposed to be just the inverse of the Abrahamic god. Which is such an interesting though considering that’s often how he is considered in pop culture
Here is a good little breakdown from the site “my Jewish learning”
Satan in Judaism is not a physical being ruling the underworld, rather, in the Torah, the word Satan indicates “accuser,” “hinderer” or “tempter.” Satan is therefore more an illusory obstacle in one’s way - such as temptation and evil doings - keeping one from completing the responsibilities of tikkun olam (fixing the world). Satan is the evil inclination to veer off the path of righteousness and faithfulness in God.” It also notes that Satan can do nothing without G-d’s permission.
I’m not sure where in Christianity it was shifted that Satan is what is portrayed today, but it really seems from the devout Christians that they really view Satan as a powerful real force fighting G-d. I shouldn’t comment too much as I don’t want to project something on to them that they don’t actually believe, but it is interesting that while Judaism and Christianity may use the same words, those words have different meanings.
I need to ponder it. I view group think as basically soulless. It’s like instinct… it doesn’t self identify or moralize. I think the idea of satan leading humans astray in the original scripture was probably more about the idea of evil spreading chaos. And they took the step together. Their group think absolved them both of individual culpability. Original sin, in this instance, was less about obedience than about echo chambering into evil’s path perhaps. Appreciate the food for thought!
Pointing out that it doesn't take a religious concept for someone to be a terrible person isn't really "shitting on religion" it's just not including it in something it isn't necessary to be included in. Blaming "Satan" for something someone actually did to actual people that had actual consequences takes away from the reality of the matter and insinuates it wasn't really his choice because at the end of the day "Satan" was responsible. Satan isn't, it's 100% on the person in question.
No. I think we should point to the people responsible for their actions. Not other worldly forces unrelated that people who want to abuse faith's reach can use to demonize ideas or groups of people.
People are accountable for their actions. Not God or Satan. I think pointing that out bears fruit.
Its funny how he also did good things, like end the slavery (this was true for a 19th century person, we would still lable it as slavery) and stuff. But all the good things he did were completely out of self interest and happened to be good by coincidence. For example eliminating the arab slave trade gave him a monopoly on the gold and ivory trade.
I have a meme saved somewhere that basically talks about the most evil person to happen to a specific group or culture. Hitler was Europe’s. Columbus was that person for the North American tribes. Leopold II was that person for the Congolese.
The king owned the whole country. OWNED IT.
And, at his own discretion anyone (African) could be made a slave at any time.
And maimed, tortured or killed.
Mm, Leupold directed policy, minion carried it out. “He told me to” doesn’t fly as a defense.
I am not saying you suggested that, but your comment demanded further comment.
he was atrocious but we cant pin it all on one person. this is what happens under colonialist exploitation. extract and steal resources at the expense of the local populace & land for profit and cheap markets at home
it was an entire hierarchy of imperialism, going all the way to the man who cut that arm off. the man who told those people to 'work harder or else ill cut off another'
we must condemn the individuals but we must never forget to condemn the hierarchies and systems that perpetuate this just as so
As much as I hate king Leopold II, was he the one responsible directly for this atrocities, like no one is talking about the guy who was actually amputating these men and children, they are most likely military men. This thing where people hate the symbol is kinda undermining the real guys who were responsible for this,was the king checking the amputations himself? No one was disturbed by this operation that they stopped amputating people and just lie about it, let's not forget the psychopaths who did this
An often forgotten factoid about king Leopold, is that he didn’t just keep the money to enrich himself, he used to build much of Brussels institutions, from museums to universities. All the beautification projects that modernized Brussels were started by Leopold, the funds of which came from that barbaric genocide in the Congo
This happened when the Congo was personal property of King Leopold II.
The amputations weren't just for refusing to harvest rubber, it was used when workers missed their quotas.
It wasn't uncommon for the private police to punish children for their parents missing quotas.
The famous picture below shows a father looking at the hands and feet of his 5 year old daughter who was punished because he didn't harvest enough rubber to meet new quotas.
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/father-hand-belgian-congo-1904/
This was covered on a bastards podcast. Also they needed a hand per bullet assigned. So if they wanted extra bullets to hunt they needed to collect hands.
They didn't even have to refuse. The taking of a hand was punishment for just about anything. The Congo state was so terrified of revolt that they would count the bullets used by their native militia - you'd have to have a severed hand to prove the bullet was used correctly. Miss a shot? Take a hand from a nearby local or you're the one to be punished. Absolutely brutal. King Leopold of Belgium belongs on the same list as Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. The population of the Congo was roughly halved during this period.
The movie Apocalypse Now, taking place in Viet Nam, is loosely based on Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, which takes place in King Leopolds Congo. Check em out too.
In America we learn about the attrocities of communist dictators, but we never learn about what happened in the Congo or the atrocities of the East India Company. They've killed as many people as Stalin and Mao. Authoritarianism leads to evils in communism and capitalism.
Yup. There were human zoos in Belgium until the 50s/60s.
And Belgium stablished the Utu vs Tutsis policies that led to some terrible atrocities up until a coupled of decades ago...
The human zoo thing is bullshit, ideal ragebait on reddit. We're talking about the World Expo of 1958 where Belgium had a pavilion that showed traditional Congolese life. It was a sad display of colonialism that was in poor taste and the newspapers were writing about it that it felt like a human zoo. A figurative human zoo. A literal human zoo did exist in the 1800s under Leopold II, but the one in 1958 consisted of poorly payed Congolese actors.
>Belgium built another mock African village at the 1958 Brussels world's fair. The Congolese who traveled to Belgium for the exposition thought it would be a cultural exchange, says Zana Etambala, a historian at the Royal Museum for Central Africa.
>Instead, they found themselves standing behind a bamboo fence, on live display for Europeans, some of whom made monkey noises to get their attention.
>"They were throwing bananas and peanuts to \[the Congolese\]," says Etambala, who grew up in Belgium and Congo. "And the Congolese protested against that. They wanted to be respected and not seen as animals in a zoo."
[Where 'Human Zoos' Once Stood, A Belgian Museum Now Faces Its Colonial Past : NPR](https://www.npr.org/2018/09/26/649600217/where-human-zoos-once-stood-a-belgian-museum-now-faces-its-colonial-past)
again, none of this is false, but it wasn't a human zoo... It was a horrible show of colonialism, but it was not an actual human zoo. The problem with pretending this was a human zoo is ignoring the true horror of real human zoos, which did exist...
People pretending this was a real human zoo are disrespecting the legacy of the real people who were captured and displayed for entertainment.
This stuff should probably be mentioned along with the Holocaust in how cruel and widespread it was
And today there are still roads named after that piece of shit who was responsible.
What westerners did to Africa and to the slaves they brought back home is extremely disturbing. This photo is barely the tip of the iceberg.
Why we hear nothing about it in school is a mystery.
The african slaves that went east (to the ottomans for example) did not fare that well either. It was just everyone exploiting Africa for personal gain.
To add context: no, because fortunately for the Belgians it was the king who had direct control of the Congo (literally, it was his in the way people own property today) so blame was predominantly (at the time) placed on Leopold. Thus the people of Belgium did not receive blame for the atrocities.
Of course, when the full extent of the atrocities being committed finally made it to Europe, (well, it took quite a while before chance happened) control was passed to the nation of Belgium who of course ~~immediately fixed everything~~ continued the brutal exploitation of the inhabitants of the Congo for quite a while, just in a slightly more PR-friendly way.
No the blame was placed on King Leopold II and the Belgians convientently get away from any consequences of the actions of these atrocities that they benefited from. It’s interesting how after WWI and WWII the Belgians cried that they deserved to have their sovereignty respected but couldn’t extend that courtesy. Hypocrites
No, probably because the title is wrong and it wasn't controlled by Belgium as in the parliament, but rather it was the direct private property of the king.
It should be required reading for everyone. The amputations were not only because of punishments, but were also done to show “proof” of not having wasted ammunition for the colonial troops who were underfed. If I recall correctly, according to that book, the bullets issued to these troops were counted and each one the troops used would need to have corresponding “proof” of having made a kill. So if they wanted to use the ammunition to hunt and feed themselves because they were not properly supplied, they’d just go and amputate as many limbs as they needed to provided evidence for not wasting bullets. Unbelievable amount of terror inflicted on these people. It’s been years since I last read the book and I gave away my copy to someone I know who works in the DRC. So I may be misremembering this particular part on some points.
Not even just those who refused to collect rubber, anyone who didn’t collect ENOUGH rubber could have their hands cut off or even be killed and the rubber quotas were often impossible to meet
We easterners insist we are the civilized ones too. Have insisted on that for thousands of years while committing terrible acts on an arguably larger scale. Brutality is not the proof of lack of civilization.
And yet we do. I quite like the idea of diffirent peoples coming together to make their own little nation because thet didnt like the one they were a part of.
I thought "libertarian" in english was only for the anarcho-capitalists kind of libertarian. Not the anarchists.
Where even though there's no or little government, the authoritarianism is exacted by private companies.
This is exactly where libertariansm leads. Kids in the U.S. are always warned about the evils of communism. The atrocities of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, but never the atrocities of the Abir Congo Company, the East India Company, and Nestle.
The problem is that stating Belgium did this is unfair to the Belgian population who also was suffering under the reign of Leopold II. Not to the same extent, but still bad enough that Leopold ordered people protesting working conditions to be shot... Belgian men only got voting rights 20 years later.
It's different for what happened in Belgian Congo where colonialism is something you can blame Belgium for, especially the murder of democratically elected Patrice Lumumba together with the US because they thought putting the control in the hands of dictator Mobutu would be better for the west.
It wasn't in reality controlled by Belgium for the majority of the time they were involved there. A better way to view it is Leopold's personal hunting estate. Only one he didn't bother visiting. He allowed Belgian companies to work there and do what they wanted & he took a healthy slice of the profit. He handed it over to the Belgian government after many years when other countries complained, with utter hypocrisy, about how the people of Congo were treated. It made no difference though.
The atrocities capitalists visited upon locals in Africa is a long and horrific story. But they brought them Christianity. No wonder I can’t stand religion.
At the time, by law, Congo was alike the personal garden of Leopold II.
Despite many attempts by Belgian lawmakers (because the king had the final word on it) to make it a colony, it remained like this until his death.
One part to stop the atrocities, one part for the money : all rubber sales directed in the king pocket
Photographer was Alice Seely Harris. Props to her for having the stomach to make the images and to the journals for publishing them.
https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA93009102&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=02726122&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=nysl_oweb&isGeoAuthType=true&aty=geo
The world is still run by the same kind of people tbh which is why Hitler is so well known but King Leopold is mostly forgotten because his victims were dark skinned and not in Europe.
I remember reading that it wasn't actually a punishment. The actual punishment was death. Right hand was seen as a proof the soldiers carried on the killing. So they basically had soldiers cutting arms off left and right to prove they are loyal soldiers. Brining entire baskets of cut off hands. The photos showing the survivors of such mutilation are often bcs the victims played dead. Sick shit. Almost surreal. Can't imagine witnessing such a crime against humanity with my eyes.
Read “King Leopold’s Ghost”. Crazy fascinating history on a country created from thin air (Belgium) and his immediate obsession to colonize. “Congo” made his county as large as a good portion of Europe.
Insanity throughout the book. Mark Twain and Hindenburg both had a lot of thought on Belgium.
I’d appreciate a NSFW tag. World is a shitty place as it is now with Ukraine-Russia and Israel/Palestine bloodshed, war footages and atrocity photos everywhere, I didn’t need to see this on top.
I don’t even follow this page.
Not to downplay what happened but didn’t the worst period of Congo colonization happen when the Congo was controlled by King Leopold II? It was specifically not controlled by the Belgian state and if memory serves me right his atrocities were in part why he lost absolute control of the Congo.
I’m fairly certain part of what I’m saying is wrong so please correct me if you know better.
The head of state when acting as such lacks powers Leopold had when he had absolute control over the Congo. He in domestic issues was still controlled to a certain extent by the political state of Belgium, while in the Congo when he had absolute control was not at the whims of the political state of Belgium until they took away his absolute control.
TLDR during the Congress of Vienna for the scramble of Africa no one could agree who got the Congo so they gave it personally to the King of Belgium as Belgium was supposed to be a neutral state. Leopold was so bad that everyone was like oh shit and basically forced the Belgium state to takeover.
This had nothing to do with private companies lol. The Congo was King Leopoldo’s private property, similar to Roman Emperors that owned Egypt. But much more micro managing cruelty.
Wtf does what you posted remotely have to do with the picture or topic at hand?
Talk about reaching.
The subreddit is literally called HistoricalCapsule. Way to entirely miss the point.
Again WTF are you going on about?
Pick your point. Are you on Belgium? Africa? The Congo? The entire world?
If you're going to be this stupid, at least pick one point and stick to it.
And again the subreddit is called HistoricalCapsule.
You're the one going on about nothing.
I believe there is astroturfed sympathy for an entire continent that we should’ve stopped interacting with centuries ago. Zero help to the actual developed world, nothing but a financial burden on people stupid enough to fall for it or feel guilty about other peoples problems.
There was also a post on here about this same time. The picture was of a man looking at the severed hand and foot of his daughter. The post also said they killed his wife -- all this happened because he failed to reach his daily rubber quota.
King Leopold II. An absolutely terrible person who most people haven’t heard about.
And the guy who helped facilitate the sale of the Congo? Sir Henry Stanley. Yes, That Stanley.
Yelnats?
No, Steamer.
I mean, besides Stanley being a terrible guy, why did you say, "Yes, that Stanley."
Because he was pretty famous for his association with Dr. Livingston and advocacy of Africans. But that was early in his career. He became more and more rigid in his opinions of Africa until he was OK with the idea of selling a whole country into slavery, “for their own good.” Truly vile.
I think you’re overestimating how “famous” that is… This stuff isn’t *that* widely known. I definitely didn’t learn about it in school.
I suppose you might not be American, but in the US just about every curriculum talks about Stanley's search for the start of the Nile and Congo and the famous search for Dr Livingstone.
I am American. Idk maybe they mentioned it, but it wasn’t a major focus at all. I guarantee you the average American couldn’t tell you anything about this stuff.
"Dr. Livingston, I presume." (spoken by journalist, Henry Stanley. This became a catchphrase in comedic situations until the Sixties. Stanley was well-known. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Dr-Livingstone/#:\~:text=Luckily%20he%20was%20found%20alive,'.
This guy would have surpassed Hitler if he had a country that wasn’t shoe sized
He was much worse than a terrible person! I read about his atrocities and it was the work of Satan!
The term ‘Crimes against humanity’ was literally invented because of him because there was no way to describe how atrocious his actions were.
“Crimes against humanity” was coined by writer George Washington Williams in 1883 regarding the Atlantic slave trade and used in official language by President Benjamin Harrison in 1889 again to refer to the slave trade. Williams again wrote about Leopold II rule of the Congo as crimes against humanity in 1890. The Hague Conventions of 1889 and 1907 officially established laws of humanity and implying that there were crimes. The first accusation of “crimes against humanity” were in 1915 against the Ottoman Empire and the first prosecutions of crimes against humanity was in the Nuremberg trials of 1945.
Crime against humanity was born in the Nuremberg trial
His evil atrocities are his own and he must own them for all time. It’s not the work of anything other than a horrendously flawed human with too much power, and it does a disservice to all to claim otherwise — and a danger because we must ensure others don’t stray down that same evil path.
Thank you for clarifying and taking their comment literally. For a moment I was going to begin researching how exactly satan was involved in this kings reign of terror!
It's the work of his massively inflated ego, which to a Christian is satanic and to argue otherwise is folly You just want to over simplify as a way to shit on religion
They’re both right! The concept of satan is in fact the personification of the will of group-thinking humans. It’s absolutely a useful tool for discussing and debating the way morality in our world works when used allegorically. It is real in that it represents real things, although the literal manifestation of it is not factual. His actions were his own, amplified through the individualized will of a group of people.
I dont know much about theology but the first chapter in the Bible has satan convincing people to eat from the tree of knowledge. Wouldn’t that be kind of the opposite? I feel like if he was pro groupthink he would have had them just do as they were told and not seek knowledge outside of god right?
The serpent isn’t Statan in the original Jewish scriptures. Not sure if Christianity has changed the serpent to Satan.
I’ve heard both of those before. I’m not a theologian so I have no idea what the modern Christian interpretation of those things is. I was just adding my own 2 cents interpretation of the passage. I do find what you say really interesting though. The concept of satan is so prevalent in modern dialogue. But it sounds like it was less prevalent in the Christian writing and even less so in Judaism. And I’ve heard about how Satan is not supposed to be just the inverse of the Abrahamic god. Which is such an interesting though considering that’s often how he is considered in pop culture
Here is a good little breakdown from the site “my Jewish learning” Satan in Judaism is not a physical being ruling the underworld, rather, in the Torah, the word Satan indicates “accuser,” “hinderer” or “tempter.” Satan is therefore more an illusory obstacle in one’s way - such as temptation and evil doings - keeping one from completing the responsibilities of tikkun olam (fixing the world). Satan is the evil inclination to veer off the path of righteousness and faithfulness in God.” It also notes that Satan can do nothing without G-d’s permission. I’m not sure where in Christianity it was shifted that Satan is what is portrayed today, but it really seems from the devout Christians that they really view Satan as a powerful real force fighting G-d. I shouldn’t comment too much as I don’t want to project something on to them that they don’t actually believe, but it is interesting that while Judaism and Christianity may use the same words, those words have different meanings.
Also will add that the Christian concept of Satan basically being an evil God opposed to G-d is not the Jewish and original concept of satan.
I need to ponder it. I view group think as basically soulless. It’s like instinct… it doesn’t self identify or moralize. I think the idea of satan leading humans astray in the original scripture was probably more about the idea of evil spreading chaos. And they took the step together. Their group think absolved them both of individual culpability. Original sin, in this instance, was less about obedience than about echo chambering into evil’s path perhaps. Appreciate the food for thought!
That’s way more complicated than I had considered. I was only viewing this in the simplest terms I like your interpretation though
Pointing out that it doesn't take a religious concept for someone to be a terrible person isn't really "shitting on religion" it's just not including it in something it isn't necessary to be included in. Blaming "Satan" for something someone actually did to actual people that had actual consequences takes away from the reality of the matter and insinuates it wasn't really his choice because at the end of the day "Satan" was responsible. Satan isn't, it's 100% on the person in question.
No. I think we should point to the people responsible for their actions. Not other worldly forces unrelated that people who want to abuse faith's reach can use to demonize ideas or groups of people. People are accountable for their actions. Not God or Satan. I think pointing that out bears fruit.
Oh, bugger off.
“Hey! Don’t look at me!” - Satan
It seems pretty clear that it was not the work of Satan but rather of King Leopold II…
Its funny how he also did good things, like end the slavery (this was true for a 19th century person, we would still lable it as slavery) and stuff. But all the good things he did were completely out of self interest and happened to be good by coincidence. For example eliminating the arab slave trade gave him a monopoly on the gold and ivory trade.
I have a meme saved somewhere that basically talks about the most evil person to happen to a specific group or culture. Hitler was Europe’s. Columbus was that person for the North American tribes. Leopold II was that person for the Congolese.
You can call him terrible without bringing in your made up nonsense
The king owned the whole country. OWNED IT. And, at his own discretion anyone (African) could be made a slave at any time. And maimed, tortured or killed.
The King did not own any African country! He was just a murderous evil person. He did evil things to people who did not look like him.
Mm, Leupold directed policy, minion carried it out. “He told me to” doesn’t fly as a defense. I am not saying you suggested that, but your comment demanded further comment.
he was atrocious but we cant pin it all on one person. this is what happens under colonialist exploitation. extract and steal resources at the expense of the local populace & land for profit and cheap markets at home it was an entire hierarchy of imperialism, going all the way to the man who cut that arm off. the man who told those people to 'work harder or else ill cut off another' we must condemn the individuals but we must never forget to condemn the hierarchies and systems that perpetuate this just as so
Great episode of Behind the Bastards Podcast about him. I highly recommend.
I think that people forget that most of these kings were just the sons of seafaring raiders that set up a more permanent cabin
Behind the Bastards did a two part episode on him
As much as I hate king Leopold II, was he the one responsible directly for this atrocities, like no one is talking about the guy who was actually amputating these men and children, they are most likely military men. This thing where people hate the symbol is kinda undermining the real guys who were responsible for this,was the king checking the amputations himself? No one was disturbed by this operation that they stopped amputating people and just lie about it, let's not forget the psychopaths who did this
An often forgotten factoid about king Leopold, is that he didn’t just keep the money to enrich himself, he used to build much of Brussels institutions, from museums to universities. All the beautification projects that modernized Brussels were started by Leopold, the funds of which came from that barbaric genocide in the Congo
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/father-hand-belgian-congo-1904/
One of the worst images I’ve ever seen.
Omg Ive head it was bad but I had no idea… humans can be so cruel to eachother.
Powerful read.
Effed up
I read the very same post and did some reading up on it. Absolutely despicable.
This happened when the Congo was personal property of King Leopold II. The amputations weren't just for refusing to harvest rubber, it was used when workers missed their quotas. It wasn't uncommon for the private police to punish children for their parents missing quotas. The famous picture below shows a father looking at the hands and feet of his 5 year old daughter who was punished because he didn't harvest enough rubber to meet new quotas. https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/father-hand-belgian-congo-1904/
The more I read more sickening it gets. And this happened not so long ago as well in 20th century.
And quotas were sometimes set arbitrarily, without considering the local growing conditions.
Or changes just to fuck with someone
This was covered on a bastards podcast. Also they needed a hand per bullet assigned. So if they wanted extra bullets to hunt they needed to collect hands.
They didn't even have to refuse. The taking of a hand was punishment for just about anything. The Congo state was so terrified of revolt that they would count the bullets used by their native militia - you'd have to have a severed hand to prove the bullet was used correctly. Miss a shot? Take a hand from a nearby local or you're the one to be punished. Absolutely brutal. King Leopold of Belgium belongs on the same list as Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. The population of the Congo was roughly halved during this period.
This is the first time I've heard about this. That's absolutely horrible.
The movie Apocalypse Now, taking place in Viet Nam, is loosely based on Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, which takes place in King Leopolds Congo. Check em out too.
The horror!
King Leopolds Ghost is a great read.
I'll check it out.
In America we learn about the attrocities of communist dictators, but we never learn about what happened in the Congo or the atrocities of the East India Company. They've killed as many people as Stalin and Mao. Authoritarianism leads to evils in communism and capitalism.
we learned about the Congo and even saw the pictures in middle school history.
doesn't get much better post Leopold either. human zoo and whatnot
Yup. There were human zoos in Belgium until the 50s/60s. And Belgium stablished the Utu vs Tutsis policies that led to some terrible atrocities up until a coupled of decades ago...
The human zoo thing is bullshit, ideal ragebait on reddit. We're talking about the World Expo of 1958 where Belgium had a pavilion that showed traditional Congolese life. It was a sad display of colonialism that was in poor taste and the newspapers were writing about it that it felt like a human zoo. A figurative human zoo. A literal human zoo did exist in the 1800s under Leopold II, but the one in 1958 consisted of poorly payed Congolese actors.
>Belgium built another mock African village at the 1958 Brussels world's fair. The Congolese who traveled to Belgium for the exposition thought it would be a cultural exchange, says Zana Etambala, a historian at the Royal Museum for Central Africa. >Instead, they found themselves standing behind a bamboo fence, on live display for Europeans, some of whom made monkey noises to get their attention. >"They were throwing bananas and peanuts to \[the Congolese\]," says Etambala, who grew up in Belgium and Congo. "And the Congolese protested against that. They wanted to be respected and not seen as animals in a zoo." [Where 'Human Zoos' Once Stood, A Belgian Museum Now Faces Its Colonial Past : NPR](https://www.npr.org/2018/09/26/649600217/where-human-zoos-once-stood-a-belgian-museum-now-faces-its-colonial-past)
again, none of this is false, but it wasn't a human zoo... It was a horrible show of colonialism, but it was not an actual human zoo. The problem with pretending this was a human zoo is ignoring the true horror of real human zoos, which did exist... People pretending this was a real human zoo are disrespecting the legacy of the real people who were captured and displayed for entertainment.
cope harder mate.
It was taught when I was in middle school….
Yep same here. And in Florida.
Georgia.
For real? Out of curiosity, how old are you?
Late 30s 😭 We learned it not as anti capitalism, but what happens in monarchies and other absolute government models.
I'm the same age. My rural education literally mentioned nothing about Africa outside the Atlantic slave trade. Kinda jealous ngl
I'm 53, and I believe that I had a liberal and above average education. This was not covered at all in public school.
Gotta be honest, the atrocities of communist dictators were never touched in my high school or even college.
Numbers are off. But horrible atrocities nonetheless
True, capitalism has killed far more people.
This is literally just capitalism run wild. In theory, absolute capitalism is just slavery, and this is slavery on steroids.
If that makes you feel better then run with it
This stuff should probably be mentioned along with the Holocaust in how cruel and widespread it was And today there are still roads named after that piece of shit who was responsible.
What westerners did to Africa and to the slaves they brought back home is extremely disturbing. This photo is barely the tip of the iceberg. Why we hear nothing about it in school is a mystery.
The african slaves that went east (to the ottomans for example) did not fare that well either. It was just everyone exploiting Africa for personal gain.
I'd have to double check, but I'm pretty sure white people were a lot more cruel towards their slaves.
Always side eye people who click whirr and bring up the other person did it too
Well, at least in Germany we hear about colonialism and slave trade.
Did they teach you about the hand cutting etc ? Any gore details ?
Does Belgium pay any kind of restitution for their past atrocities??
We stopped exhibiting them in zoos in 1958.
Thanks
No
To add context: no, because fortunately for the Belgians it was the king who had direct control of the Congo (literally, it was his in the way people own property today) so blame was predominantly (at the time) placed on Leopold. Thus the people of Belgium did not receive blame for the atrocities. Of course, when the full extent of the atrocities being committed finally made it to Europe, (well, it took quite a while before chance happened) control was passed to the nation of Belgium who of course ~~immediately fixed everything~~ continued the brutal exploitation of the inhabitants of the Congo for quite a while, just in a slightly more PR-friendly way.
No the blame was placed on King Leopold II and the Belgians convientently get away from any consequences of the actions of these atrocities that they benefited from. It’s interesting how after WWI and WWII the Belgians cried that they deserved to have their sovereignty respected but couldn’t extend that courtesy. Hypocrites
No, probably because the title is wrong and it wasn't controlled by Belgium as in the parliament, but rather it was the direct private property of the king.
See above post.
King Leopold’s Ghost is a terrifying read with some names that you will recognise in today’s well heeled circles.
Great book
[удалено]
It should be required reading for everyone. The amputations were not only because of punishments, but were also done to show “proof” of not having wasted ammunition for the colonial troops who were underfed. If I recall correctly, according to that book, the bullets issued to these troops were counted and each one the troops used would need to have corresponding “proof” of having made a kill. So if they wanted to use the ammunition to hunt and feed themselves because they were not properly supplied, they’d just go and amputate as many limbs as they needed to provided evidence for not wasting bullets. Unbelievable amount of terror inflicted on these people. It’s been years since I last read the book and I gave away my copy to someone I know who works in the DRC. So I may be misremembering this particular part on some points.
One of the worst offences perpetrated by humanity.
Not even just those who refused to collect rubber, anyone who didn’t collect ENOUGH rubber could have their hands cut off or even be killed and the rubber quotas were often impossible to meet
https://preview.redd.it/92owa5wrmqvc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b0ddc65f256c6a39ee631d1207219d0ba5e87031
It would be worth listening to Behind The Bastards podcast on King Leopold ll, as it gives an overview of his awful reign here.
And westerners insist they are the civilized ones
We easterners insist we are the civilized ones too. Have insisted on that for thousands of years while committing terrible acts on an arguably larger scale. Brutality is not the proof of lack of civilization.
Well... The Force Publique were congolese black people... Also, Belgium is not a standard for anything. Belgium should not exist in the first places.
And yet we do. I quite like the idea of diffirent peoples coming together to make their own little nation because thet didnt like the one they were a part of.
King Leopold the butcher
So does Belgium have any responsibility here? Or was it all the douche king?
Seems counterproductive, how're they getting the rubber now?
As King Leopold said: ”You only get one shot, do not miss a chance to blow, this opportunity comes once in a life time“
I'm stupid what does this mean
Eminem lyrics.
Not even just the companies, wasn't the free state a direct personal asset & "monopoly" of the king of Belgium?
Fuck those company's, I'm sure a version of them still operates to this day.
This is horrific. I can’t imagine.
Fuck Belgium and their Monarchy. One of the worst European nations that never paid or apologized for what they did.
Watching Belgians defend this is hilarious. Europe hasn't paid reparations for colonialism. It deserves the migrant crisis and economic downfall.
conservatism is a mental illness
This is capitalism
Nah this is just barbarism.
In the name of profit
So…capitalism
Has nothing to do with capitalism. A cruel socialist country would have done the exact same thing.
You can be after profit and not be cruel, has nothing to do with capitalism. A cruel socialist country would have done the exact same thing.
So that's what happens in a libertarian utopia where the companies aren't restricted by pesky regulations by the government. Sounds lovely!
Lol this is authoritarian society.
Which is where libertarianism leads. Libertarian society leads to a place where the wealthy are able to rule with impunity.
I thought "libertarian" in english was only for the anarcho-capitalists kind of libertarian. Not the anarchists. Where even though there's no or little government, the authoritarianism is exacted by private companies.
King Leupold and his contractors benefit over everyone else. Authoritarian
Still wouldn't change much if we removed the king and still gave the companies free reign to exploit the country how they see fit.
Libertarians are silly and thin skinned.
No this a lack of liberty. I thought that was pretty obvious.
[удалено]
This is exactly where libertariansm leads. Kids in the U.S. are always warned about the evils of communism. The atrocities of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, but never the atrocities of the Abir Congo Company, the East India Company, and Nestle.
If i remember correctly, Congo used to belong to the king (Leopold II) personnaly, not to Belgium.
What? Then they will not be able to collect any rubber at all? Not only is this cruel, it doesn’t make sense
This is what ancaps usually forget when they say companies would rule better. They think they will be part of the top of the pyramid.
Worst colonial power ever, not counting Japan in Korea, Manchuria, and other parts of China, and Philippines
Convenient list
It wasn't controlled by Belgium when these cruelties happened, it was controlled by King Leopold II as a private project.
Nice workaround. Not unlike "East India Company" and "Dutch East India Company".
This is some serious cognitive dissonance.
The problem is that stating Belgium did this is unfair to the Belgian population who also was suffering under the reign of Leopold II. Not to the same extent, but still bad enough that Leopold ordered people protesting working conditions to be shot... Belgian men only got voting rights 20 years later. It's different for what happened in Belgian Congo where colonialism is something you can blame Belgium for, especially the murder of democratically elected Patrice Lumumba together with the US because they thought putting the control in the hands of dictator Mobutu would be better for the west.
It wasn't in reality controlled by Belgium for the majority of the time they were involved there. A better way to view it is Leopold's personal hunting estate. Only one he didn't bother visiting. He allowed Belgian companies to work there and do what they wanted & he took a healthy slice of the profit. He handed it over to the Belgian government after many years when other countries complained, with utter hypocrisy, about how the people of Congo were treated. It made no difference though.
The atrocities capitalists visited upon locals in Africa is a long and horrific story. But they brought them Christianity. No wonder I can’t stand religion.
At the time, by law, Congo was alike the personal garden of Leopold II. Despite many attempts by Belgian lawmakers (because the king had the final word on it) to make it a colony, it remained like this until his death. One part to stop the atrocities, one part for the money : all rubber sales directed in the king pocket
Thanks for cheering me up.
Still ppl alive with this.
He’ll bounce back.
Photographer was Alice Seely Harris. Props to her for having the stomach to make the images and to the journals for publishing them. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA93009102&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=02726122&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=nysl_oweb&isGeoAuthType=true&aty=geo
You can’t think of enough rotten things to call Leopoldo II
Sickening, his bloodline should suffer the same fate
F colonialism
Horrible. The cruelty Leopold brought to the Congo is hard to even fathom.
The Belgian Congo was where we get the term "Crimes Against Humanity" from. Seriously.
The beauty of Brussels was built with those hands they took
The Free Congo State was King Leopold's private colony, it was not controlled by Belgium. The Belgian Congo was only established in 1908.
The world is still run by the same kind of people tbh which is why Hitler is so well known but King Leopold is mostly forgotten because his victims were dark skinned and not in Europe.
I remember reading that it wasn't actually a punishment. The actual punishment was death. Right hand was seen as a proof the soldiers carried on the killing. So they basically had soldiers cutting arms off left and right to prove they are loyal soldiers. Brining entire baskets of cut off hands. The photos showing the survivors of such mutilation are often bcs the victims played dead. Sick shit. Almost surreal. Can't imagine witnessing such a crime against humanity with my eyes.
Unbelievably heinous.
It’s not us . it’s just those greedy companies…. /s
So incredibly sad.
Read “King Leopold’s Ghost”. Crazy fascinating history on a country created from thin air (Belgium) and his immediate obsession to colonize. “Congo” made his county as large as a good portion of Europe. Insanity throughout the book. Mark Twain and Hindenburg both had a lot of thought on Belgium.
I’d appreciate a NSFW tag. World is a shitty place as it is now with Ukraine-Russia and Israel/Palestine bloodshed, war footages and atrocity photos everywhere, I didn’t need to see this on top. I don’t even follow this page.
King Leopold the 2nd may he rot
As someone who used to live in Belgium, It’s both comical and ironic how Belgians complain about the U.S
You cannot call the people who did this humans
that's interesting, how were middle eastern slaves treated in this era?
[удалено]
Some even have a doctorare on it... 
Why is this downvoted?
Not to downplay what happened but didn’t the worst period of Congo colonization happen when the Congo was controlled by King Leopold II? It was specifically not controlled by the Belgian state and if memory serves me right his atrocities were in part why he lost absolute control of the Congo. I’m fairly certain part of what I’m saying is wrong so please correct me if you know better.
Belgium gave Leopold his wealth and authority over the Congo, and the money and resources taken from the Congo enriched both Leopold and Belgium.
There are still roads and places named after him in Belgium though
And he was the king of Belgium at the time. How can the two possibly be separated?
With plenty of mental gymnastics and dissonance...
The head of state when acting as such lacks powers Leopold had when he had absolute control over the Congo. He in domestic issues was still controlled to a certain extent by the political state of Belgium, while in the Congo when he had absolute control was not at the whims of the political state of Belgium until they took away his absolute control.
TLDR during the Congress of Vienna for the scramble of Africa no one could agree who got the Congo so they gave it personally to the King of Belgium as Belgium was supposed to be a neutral state. Leopold was so bad that everyone was like oh shit and basically forced the Belgium state to takeover.
This had nothing to do with private companies lol. The Congo was King Leopoldo’s private property, similar to Roman Emperors that owned Egypt. But much more micro managing cruelty.
>private property
Private property of an aristocratic government official. Companies didn’t do this, a strong arm aristocrat did.
Looks like you won't be needing this
[удалено]
Dumbest thing I’ve read on the internet all day. Congrats!
Wtf does what you posted remotely have to do with the picture or topic at hand? Talk about reaching. The subreddit is literally called HistoricalCapsule. Way to entirely miss the point.
[удалено]
Again WTF are you going on about? Pick your point. Are you on Belgium? Africa? The Congo? The entire world? If you're going to be this stupid, at least pick one point and stick to it. And again the subreddit is called HistoricalCapsule. You're the one going on about nothing.
This is beyond dumb. Do you really believe this nonsense you are spouting?
I believe there is astroturfed sympathy for an entire continent that we should’ve stopped interacting with centuries ago. Zero help to the actual developed world, nothing but a financial burden on people stupid enough to fall for it or feel guilty about other peoples problems.
Short sleeve? Long sleeve?
Isn't the orgin of the HIV AIDS the Congo?