Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Leopold & imperialism | |
Author: Paddy (Scotland) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 20:28:52 11/25/04 Thu In reply to: Owain (UK) 's message, "King Leopold?" on 17:26:30 11/25/04 Thu Initially the Congo was ruled directly as his own personal posession, rather than as a posession of the Belgian state. This gave him an enormous source of revenue. The trouble was that he wished to maximise this revenue and told his European overseers on the plantations to do anything they could to maximise profits. The result was that starving underpaid workers had their hands chopped off or their bodies mutilated in the most ghastly way if they were caught stealing a tiny quantity of rubber hoping to sell it to feed their families. Also there were random reprisals against all of the workers for the slight misdeeds of the minority. All of this horror took place on the whim of some ignorant plantation overseer without any form of trial. While the Congo was under direct rule from the crown there was no benefit brought to the natives at all and the crown is responsable for the lack of law and order of this time. In the Congo the Belgians were savgaes right up until they left. They killed more innocent people than the NAZIs did throughout their rule. I deliberately did not use the phrase Nazi-like reprisals above as it would be more accurate to describe NAZI deeds as Belgian-like. Sadly the Congo has learnt a lot from its period ruled by the Belgians. Since 1998, the still-ongoing war in the Congo has resulted in three million deaths, 6 or 7 times the total number of British Commonwealth and Empire deaths of the second world war ( estimated around 450000). The population of the Congo is now about 50,000000 - the war has caused the death of about 6% of the current total. Owain, "Imperialism" is what the British (and to an extent, the French and the Americans) were doing at the time. In the territories occupied/colonised by Britain the rule of law was paramount over all things. Years before the Belgians moved into the Congo the British had concluded the treaty of Waitangi with the natives in New Zealand. The document essentially was an offer of British protection of the rights of the Maori and is incredably enlightened for the time. The natives became British subjects with the benefits of the protection of British law over the white British settlers who wished to take their land off them. The date of the signing is a national holiday in New Zealand, understandably so. General Smuts, in my opinion one of the greatest statesmen in the history of the Empire actually fought against the British during the Boer war but afterwards concluded that wherever the British had established themselves good things had come of it and threw himself in with the new South Africa. Subsequently he fought the Germans out of East Africa with troops from across the British Empire. The French settlers along the coast of Algeria reclaimed land close to the sea from marsh-land, meaning that under Islamic law the land was actually theirs. They did not just throw the peasants off their land crudly, there were elements of diplomacy involved. Looking at the legacy of Empires, former British territories such as Botswana, South Africa on the African continent and India and Malasia are all stable democracies. This is due to leaders having respect for the things they learnt from Britain and a lot of hard work on their part. Yes on the other side of the coin there are Zimbabwe and Burma, though due to the rulers of these nations since Britain left them with the guidebook. There are no French models left from their empire. However, they do actually have a very large number of troops in Africa at any time keeping the peace, the Banque de France controls the currency of 14 sub-saharan African countries (wierdly meaning that now the Banque de France has more control over a foreign currency than it has over that of France) and French investors hold large amounts of investments there. In short, the French know that their former territories are hell-holes but at least they get involved, more often for the better than not. (I for one cannot see Britain should be unwilling to depose Mugabe and get those National Health Service glasses back to give to somebody who does not have 15 billion swiss francs sitting in Geneva). Just because somebody rules over a territory does not make them an imperialist. Imperialism as a concept is actually a noble one in many ways - set up a benign dictatorship until things in a territory get "better" and the Natives know how to behave. The actions of the Belgians, Spanish and Germans in their "Empires" were not Imperialist ones, they were appalling criminal ones for the most part. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I disagree | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:58:21 11/25/04 Thu I know about the terrible way the Belgians (and the Germans, though I have read nothing on the Spanish African Empire, though if the Americans thought they were oppressed they should have looked to the South) treated there African subjects. My admiration is for Leopold, not the Empire he created. Indeed atrocities commited by the people of the low countries pop up quite frequently throughout history. I have wondered if perhaps this is in any related to there rather bloody brake from Spain, I dont know enough about that to say so though. I disagree with your definition of Imperialism. Your right to say that someone who rules over a teritory is not neccesarly an imperialist. An imperialist is someone who actively seeks to acquire more territory. Cecil Rhodes was an Imperialist. He was so because he wished to make lots of money, not because he wanted to bring the natives into the 19th century. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I fail to understand how you can feel any kind of admiration for Leopold | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:35:56 11/25/04 Thu He is right up there with the Mugabes, the Stalins and the Pinochets in the far-from-admirable stakes. I admire people who set out to do something positive and who respect the rights and freedoms of others as they do their own. Leopold manifestly did neither. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: sorry about the enormous number of typing errors in the above! | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:10:39 11/26/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |