Members with This Book
Most Helpful Reviews
see all reviews
Liked It “Phenomenal. The story itself is extremely compelling, but Adam Hochschild does an impeccable job of weaving the many aspects of the Congo story into one coherent book. The comprehensive, be-all-end-all book about Leopold's Congo. Absolutely a must-read!” see full review » see other reviews » |
Newest Reviews
see all reviews-
“When you read this book , the next time an African country under goes another coup you will not scream "not again" rather you will read in between the lines.”
Ndungu M wrote this review 17 hours ago. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No“Phenomenal. The story itself is extremely compelling, but Adam Hochschild does an impeccable job of weaving the many aspects of the Congo story into one coherent book. The comprehensive, be-all-end-all book about Leopold's Congo. Absolutely a must-read!”
Vyrubova wrote this review yesterday. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No“Fantastic book about the exploitation of Africa”
Sallly S wrote this review 6 days ago. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“Eyeopener”
Modeste wrote this review 7 days ago. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“I had no idea how brutal and inhuman the "colonizers" were. This was a shocking read for me.”
Tess wrote this review 8 days ago. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No“Good exploration of the foundation of issues still alive in Congo today. Although it's an incredibly well-researched history, it reads well. It's horrifying to think of what humans are capable of doing to one another.”
Sandra H wrote this review 2 weeks ago. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“A little long in places. ”
Michelle wrote this review 3 weeks ago. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“I had to read this for my World History class. It was good if you're into this part of history. Boring if you're not. ”
Natalie M wrote this review 4 weeks ago. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“The Belgian Congo, as Zaire and now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, were formerly called was the creation of King Leopold of Belgium who desperately wanted a colony. By the late 19th century there was little land left for the taking except in Africa and it had become obvious that taking over independent lands was neither wise nor practical. King Leopold II, King of the Belgians, was a man of enormous appetites both for land and food—he once ate two whole pheasants at a restaurant in Paris, and it was not unusual for him to order several entrees. His colony was 75 times larger than Belgium.
Eric w wrote this review Monday, November 23 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
Stanley’s explorations in Africa were becoming well known and sensational, and Leopold carefully wooed him into striking a bargain--Stanley wisely requested his payment in advance – that would have Stanley lead an expedition to build a road into the heart of Africa. He had learned an important lesson during his search for Livingston: there was little military threat from the local inhabitants who were small in population, encompassed more than 200 ethnic groups speaking more than 400 languages making a joint effort against the white man distinctly unlikely.
Leopold was being more than a little disingenuous. In addition to sponsoring Stanley’s expedition, he paid for several others who were attempting to reach the interior from the east. He also used several front organizations in an attempt to hide his financial interest. Stanley himself was unaware that one of the “committees” had expired over a year earlier and was being used by the King in name only.
The cost of maintaining the expeditions and building infrastructure to get the immense natural resource wealth out of the Congo soon depleted most of Leopold’s fortune, so he managed to obtain a loan from the Belgian parliament at the same time obtaining permission to become the sovereign of another country while King of Belgium.
The rape of the Congo assumed, in Hochschild’s words, “a death toll of Holocaust dimensions.” Despite Leopold’s use of anti-slavery rhetoric to gain acceptance for his strategies, the people of the region suffered horrible enslavement. Any resistance to the country’s plunder was met with strong measures. Failing to meet quotas was a capital offense. Hands of dead Congolese were cut off and kept in storage to account for expended ammunition, although often the natives were killed just for sport. It has been estimated that 50% of the population died between the 1870’s and 1919, approximately 10 million people were killed most often from sickness and starvation.
Leopold was a genius at public relations and he knew how to accumulate supporters in other countries through flattery and marketing. Civilization and suppression of the slave trade were words often used to describe his motives He insisted he wanted to create a free state similar to Liberia, an idea that appealed to American white racists who were still looking for places to export America’s blacks. John Tyler Morgan, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Henry Shelton Sanford, wealthy Florida orange planter and strong supporter of President Chester A. Arthur, were easily manipulated by the King into gaining American support for his efforts.
Reading this book reinforced my view that, as a society, our values and standards are far superior to those of the nineteenth century. The discovery of rubber and its immense number of uses for an increasingly industrial society made it a valuable commodity that would make Leopold immensely rich. He did so on the backs of the black population of the Congo. He could not countenance slavery, of course, so his soldiers would take hostages, usually women and children, to be returned when the natives had supplied their quota of rubber. Gathering the rubber was dangerous and very painful -- the usual method was to let the rubber sap dry on one's skin and then peel it off. People in communities that showed resistance were shot. The good generals, fearing that soldiers might be saving cartridges for hunting or mutiny, demanded that the soldiers supply the right hand of each victim they killed for each cartridge, presumably only one being needed per victim. One person was in charge of smoking the hands to preserve them so they would remain in condition to be counted by the appropriate authorities. Often soldiers would use bullets to kill animals to eat and sever the hand off a living person to account for the bullets.
Women hostages were difficult for the commanders because their men would often demand the prettier ones to rape and this lead to morale problems. I suspect some of the savagery know going on in Africa may have be learned from western Europeans.
The savagery did not go unnoticed and several men were notable in their opposition. Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” fictionally revealed the corruption while Edmund Morel, Roger Casement, and George Washington Williams, among others, formed the strongest public opposition to Leopold’s savagery.
This is a model account that carries several lessons for us today. The distance consumers are from the location of the raw materials needed to fuel their thirst for ever more goodies—I count myself among the worst offenders, that new PalmPilot is really cool—permits the rape of the less fortunate to proceed behind a fog of marketing and public relations, that bane of the twentieth century that celebrates mendacity as its highest ethic. One has only to review pictures of “smart” weapons and high altitude bombing to understand how savagery has become a game. But, the speed of international communications and the camera have also played a part in exposing and revealing the travesties, so one can still hope that they might belong to the not so distant past.”
