King Leopold’s Ghost, Book Review Example

Introduction

The book of Adam Hochschild brought to life the story of a long terrifying period in the life of Congo that happened at the verge of two centuries, the 19^th and 20^th, and impressed the whole humanity by the awfulness and cold-bloodedness of the massacre arranged by the King Leopold who was the ruler of Belgium at that time. The King realized how many treasuries there were in his colony and decided to take all of them without a slightest thought about the inhabitants of the region. The book tells an inhumanly sincere story about the ferocities committed by the Belgian soldiers who did not even consider native residents to be people and perceived them as training targets.

The horror lasted for nearly 20 years and the results are estimated in millions of people who became the victims of genocide. The King Leopold is said to have reduced the population of Congo by nearly one half, so the scale of his genocide can hardly be overestimated. The story was neglected at the time it happened and was revealed, but the book of Hochschild brought about the new wave of attention to the topic, thus signaling the unacceptability of such ferocities in all times and by all people, disregarding the centuries and the age of the drama.

Analyzing the book and the touching facts that have been laid out by the author, it is necessary to look deeper into the matter and find out how such a situation could have occurred in the context of the relatively modern society that did not accept barbarism, that already had strong moral and ethical standards and that had already accepted humanistic principles of life. It was still far from the World Wars and even from the intervention of Napoleon into Europe, so it is possible to say that the world of that period still did not experience the unrivaled cruelty and drama of later periods of human development. So, it is extremely complicated to understand how such a situation could develop and be not noticed by the vast majority of both Belgians and other Europeans, by the governments and controlling mechanisms that could have prevented and stopped the massacre but decided not to.

The main idea included in Hochschild’s book is that King Leopold was a cunning and cruel man striving for wealth, but at the same time he was extremely wise.  His devilish wit provided him with the skills to persuade the government of Belgium and outstanding political figures of other influential European countries in his virtuous intentions in the Congo. And indeed, everyone believed him – it is enough to recollect the horror and surprise of those missionaries and soldiers who came to the Congo with one goal and discovered all atrocities that were committed in the name of Leopold (Hochschild).

At the same time, when the true situation in the Congo was revealed, King Leopold still managed to play his political games successfully so that no-one could prevent him from achieving his evil goals. He manipulated the government and made false promises in the hope that the politicians would forget about them and would be mislead by his false activities:

“Leopold hoped, legislators would forget his earlier promises, so he waited before approaching Parliament. And as he waited, he worked, once again, on burnishing his reputation as a philanthropist and humanitarian” (Hochschild 92).

Thus, the most inhuman and cruel governor who did not appreciate the human life to the least extent managed to win the fame of a humanitarian striving to establish peace, to bring education and enlightenment to the undeveloped regions of his country, at the same time allowing and even motivating the unrivaled cruelty, mass genocide and inhuman deeds that will remain in the history of mankind forever. Reading this book it is still impossible to believe how such a situation in the large part of the African continent could have remained unknown or known but neglected by the civilized Europe. The reasons and motives for such state of affairs have to be thoroughly considered – at least the way they are seen by Hochschild.

Needs for Congo Kept as Secret From Others

It is true that Europe at the end of the 19^th century and at the beginning of the 20^th was already a well-developed, cultural center of the world that cultivated the development of art, literature and humanities – thus it is too hard to believe that the common public and the government agencies of leading European countries could accept such a situation in one of Belgium’s colonies. There is only one reason for such secret about Congo’s events – the government of Belgium on behalf of King Leopold clearly understood that it would be extremely hard for them to preserve the territory only for themselves in case the truth about the treasures hidden there would be revealed.

Everyone knows that in all periods of the human history development people were guided by their thirst for wealth, fame and welfare, no matter by what means it would be achieved. The same situation was observed with King Leopold and his Congo atrocities – in case more political powers learned about the rubber and ivory potential of Congo, there would be a war for influence and for power at the territory of the suffering country. So King Leopold, who was wise, as it has already been said, managed to keep his activities secret and managed to do that for more than 20 years, getting incomparably rich and powerful through the sufferings he gave to the nation of Congo. At the time he was making his people gather rubber and ivory to fill his pockets, he was also disseminating lies about his welfare activities in Congo thus winning the reputation of nearly a savior of poor people. Revelation of the truth would have been a true, unbearable shock for anyone, but unfortunately it did not.

Looking at the motives of King Leopold to keep the situation secret, it seems that they are obvious. However, there is still a usual tendency that nothing can be kept secret – there have been a great number of examples of such situations, so, especially taking into consideration the number of witnesses of the horror that took place, it is highly improbable that the information did not leak to the rest of the society. This consideration should make everyone doubt the real level of the events being a secret; the thought that is the first to come to mind is that people knew about the drama, but did not consider it necessary to act. Why this happened and what caused such an unusually cold-blooded reaction to the massacre that continuously happened at their eyes is to be analyzed further – again, from the point of view offered by Adam Hochschild.

Ignorance and Absence of Attention to Congo’s Issues

The beginning of the 20^th century, without speaking about the end of the 19^th, was surely marked by racial hatred and strong beliefs in the dominance of the white race. Even despite the enormous declarations about humanism and democracy to which all countries of the world were called to strive, the reality showed much more moral ugliness and ignorance than there should have been in that historical period. Even before the beginning of World War I the mood of Europeans directed at peace, welfare and equality did not prove to be real. To prove this, it is enough to recollect he active fight for racial equality in the US that lasted till the middle of the 20^th century and was still not won by that time. Even now some people who are representative of racial minorities in the white countries experience racial hatred and discrimination, so it is evident that about a century ago the situation was much worse. Surely, Europeans were humanistic, but only towards people of their own race:

“What made it possible for the functionaries in the Congo to so blithely watch the chicotte in action and … deal out pain and death in other ways as well? To begin with, of course, was race. To Europeans, Africans were inferior beings: lazy, uncivilized, little better than animals. … Then, of course, the terror in the Congo was sanctioned by the [white] authorities. For a white man to rebel meant challenging the system that provided your livelihood” (Hochschild 121).

Judging from this quotation, it is possible to see that Europeans were surely considered a developed and humanistic nation, but they followed double standards and treated only human beings in a humane way. So they were not able to adequately assess the atrocities taking place with their co-citizens, even possessing a different color of skin – they simply did not think they were human. Surely, it is possible to say that it was a huge pitfall of education and up-bringing of that period of time, but it is hard to blame anyone because of the peculiarities of perception of reality in different periods of human development. And turning back to the book of Hochschild, it becomes clear that it would be useless to look for help in neighboring European countries that received less profit from their colonies but acted even more cruelly than Belgian soldiers did:

“In France’s equatorial African territories…the amount of rubber-bearling land was far less than what Leopold controlled, but the rape was just as brutal. Almost all exploitable land was divided among concession companies. Forced labor, hostages, slave chains, starving porters, burned villages, paramilitary company ‘sentries,’ and the chicotte were the order of the day” (Hochschild 366).

What was considered normal at those times is considered absurd and terribly inhuman in our times, so it is extremely hard to give an objective judgment to the events that took place much time ago. We can produce our judgment only from the viewpoint and our world image – the events described in the present review surely can be equaled to genocide of World War II and several other examples of extreme inhumanity, massacre and cruelty the humanity experienced throughout the historical process. The only lesson that the reader can take from the book is to be humane, to perceive reality objectively and to accept a normal humane attitude to all people in the world, making a slight contribution to the peace in the whole world.

References

Hochschild, Adam. King Leopold’s Ghost: a story of greed, terror, and heroism in colonial Africa. Houghton Mifflin, 1998.