I'm Ghanaian American, and I agree with you that many claims about colonialism are exaggerated or simplistic. For example, the idea that Europe industrialized because of Africa doesn’t hold up—industrialization in Britain and Europe was driven primarily by domestic coal, capital accumulation, and institutional reforms, not colonial exploitation. Colonialism was a consequence of Europe’s industrial strength, not the cause of it. Most African colonies were used for exporting cash crops like cocoa, cotton, sisal, or rubber—not for funding industrial revolutions.
I say this to make clear that I’m not someone who gets emotional about uncomfortable truths or clings to grievance narratives—I care about historical accuracy.
That said, I appreciate that your piece raises lesser-known facts, such as the role of Zanzibari Arab slave traders like Tipu Tip, which Stanley's "How I Found Livingstone" also documents.
But I do have some key issues with your article:
1. Heart of Darkness was written in 1899. It is explicitly set DURING King Leopold II’s rule over the Congo Free State (1885–1908), not before it. Conrad based the novella on his own experiences as a riverboat captain in the Congo in 1890, where he witnessed firsthand the brutalities of the colonial system run by the État Indépendant du Congo (EIC)—Leopold's private colony. If he went there in 1890, why would you say "Heart of Darkness is a book that is actually about the pre-EIC anarchy in the Congo rather than what King Leopold wrought?
2. Yes, I agree the 10M deaths also doesn't make sense demographically speaking. Their population was at best 10M. But still more than 10K died. In David Van Reybrouck (in Congo: The Epic History) and Belgian demographer Jean-Paul Sanderson model a population decline of around 10–20% during the Leopold era, that would still mean 1 to 2M died.
3. The atrocities were widely reported—not isolated.
You downplay the rubber atrocities as rare or limited to areas beyond EIC control. But we have extensive reports from many independent sources:
Missionaries like Alice Seeley Harris and John Weeks
Congo Free State insiders like Lt. Louis-Napoléon Chaltin and Charles Stokes
Congolese testimonies collected by the Casement Commission
Photos and documentation from the Congo Reform Association (CRA)
4. The hand-chopping was done both in Zanzibari Arab rule AND in Congo Free State
Even in the Congo Free state chopping off hands was reported by Roger Casement, John Harris, and confirmed by the 1905 Belgian commission, which Leopold could not suppress.
5. The infamous photo, the Nsala of Wala photo is real—not staged.
The photo of Nsala of Wala with the severed hand and foot of his daughter is one of the best-documented images. You claim it was “staged,” but:
Missionary John Harris submitted a sworn affidavit in 1905 confirming its authenticity.
The photo was taken by Alice Seeley Harris, who also documented dozens of similar mutilations.
Multiple eyewitnesses confirmed that ABIR rubber agents were responsible.
The idea that these photos were faked is a modern revisionist myth. The Congo Reform Association backed them with testimony, documents, and government inquiries.
If we have: Photographic evidence, Eyewitnesses, Government reports (including the 1905 Belgian Commission),Firsthand accounts from missionaries, diplomats, and Congolese themselves…
…then why should we believe one anecdote from a soldier (Bricusse) over that mountain of credible evidence?
While I agree that there's many lies and exaggerations about colonialism to foment white guilt. I think this article goes overboard on the other side.
We should be able to acknowledge that Arab Zanzibaris also did bad things and enslaved the people that it was closer to 1M instead of 10M died, AND admit that the Congo Free State was full of atrocities at the same time.
The sad uncomfortable truth was that this area was hell due to Zanzibari plantation slavery and that King Leopold's rule was also bad and BOTH chopped off African hands.
I’m not very educated on this matter, but I found it quite telling that the only citations in this essay were from a single man, Professor Bruce Gilley. Bruce Gilley is a professor of political science, not history.
Why do you think they lie so much about colonialism? My thought is there’s a level of animosity of seeing someone else make something nice/great when you couldn’t.
Almost like a deadbeat parent seeing their child raised to be successful by someone else.
It really is odd how much academics hate seeing Europeans drag others into civilization
Indeed. If you look at why they hated Rhodesia, for example, it was that the voting system was a fair standard the lowest common denominators stood no chance of passing
The chaotic and ill-conceived Belgian withdrawal from the Congo had reverberations across the wider region. The Rhodesians had set up an evacuation corridor for fleeing Belgians during the Congo Crisis of 1960-1965, offering them sanctuary in their homes. Events such as the Stanleyville, Congo, slaughter of whites in 1964 were a significant factor in the Rhodesian Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965 and thus the Congo Crisis contributed to a much greater global crisis.
There is a consistent distortion of facts by academia and other media who always twist the narrative of colonialism to fit their rigid orthodoxy. Mutilation of limbs was common during the Rhodesian Bush War where it was perpetrated on black rural villagers by the Mugabe and Nkomo militias. A speciality was cutting out a foetus from a pregnant woman and forcing the villagers to eat it, a modern form of cannibalism that was still in existence in Rhodesia during the late 1970's in black on black terrorism. It is therefore all too easy to imagine that such tactics were perpetrated by black militia or slave traders in the Congo rather than being directed by Leopold from a palace in Belgium.
On the interesting reference to the Arab slave trade in the Congo: In southern and central Africa the Arabs preceded Europeans by hundreds of years, an obvious historical fact but one that is somehow excluded from the orthodox narrative disseminated by academics that blame all the evils of the world on European colonialism.
Every midwit on social media has had a clickbait article in their feed like “6 reasons why king Leopold was worse than Hitler. Number 3 will shock you!!” Obviously it’s all fake, like most pop history (smallpox blankets for example)
Make sure you watch the documentary Empire of Dust if you haven’t. It’s a great look at modern day Congo from a Chinese perspective.
My wife is from Belgium and she has lots of stories about Congo and Congolese people since the country still has somewhat of a connection there even today.
Excellent work, personally I've never been into the White Man's Burden stuff and leading the Third World into civilization. We should focus on our own interests and allow others to rise or fall on their own.
Kinda. There are a lot of mineral resources there that are rare and somewhat needed. Getting them is easier when the population doesn’t hate you and is relatively affluent/not getting eaten by cannibals
Hi there,
I'm Ghanaian American, and I agree with you that many claims about colonialism are exaggerated or simplistic. For example, the idea that Europe industrialized because of Africa doesn’t hold up—industrialization in Britain and Europe was driven primarily by domestic coal, capital accumulation, and institutional reforms, not colonial exploitation. Colonialism was a consequence of Europe’s industrial strength, not the cause of it. Most African colonies were used for exporting cash crops like cocoa, cotton, sisal, or rubber—not for funding industrial revolutions.
I say this to make clear that I’m not someone who gets emotional about uncomfortable truths or clings to grievance narratives—I care about historical accuracy.
That said, I appreciate that your piece raises lesser-known facts, such as the role of Zanzibari Arab slave traders like Tipu Tip, which Stanley's "How I Found Livingstone" also documents.
But I do have some key issues with your article:
1. Heart of Darkness was written in 1899. It is explicitly set DURING King Leopold II’s rule over the Congo Free State (1885–1908), not before it. Conrad based the novella on his own experiences as a riverboat captain in the Congo in 1890, where he witnessed firsthand the brutalities of the colonial system run by the État Indépendant du Congo (EIC)—Leopold's private colony. If he went there in 1890, why would you say "Heart of Darkness is a book that is actually about the pre-EIC anarchy in the Congo rather than what King Leopold wrought?
2. Yes, I agree the 10M deaths also doesn't make sense demographically speaking. Their population was at best 10M. But still more than 10K died. In David Van Reybrouck (in Congo: The Epic History) and Belgian demographer Jean-Paul Sanderson model a population decline of around 10–20% during the Leopold era, that would still mean 1 to 2M died.
3. The atrocities were widely reported—not isolated.
You downplay the rubber atrocities as rare or limited to areas beyond EIC control. But we have extensive reports from many independent sources:
Missionaries like Alice Seeley Harris and John Weeks
Diplomats like Roger Casement (1904 report)
Read here:
https://archive.org/details/CasementReport/page/n3/mode/2up
Congo Free State insiders like Lt. Louis-Napoléon Chaltin and Charles Stokes
Congolese testimonies collected by the Casement Commission
Photos and documentation from the Congo Reform Association (CRA)
4. The hand-chopping was done both in Zanzibari Arab rule AND in Congo Free State
Even in the Congo Free state chopping off hands was reported by Roger Casement, John Harris, and confirmed by the 1905 Belgian commission, which Leopold could not suppress.
5. The infamous photo, the Nsala of Wala photo is real—not staged.
The photo of Nsala of Wala with the severed hand and foot of his daughter is one of the best-documented images. You claim it was “staged,” but:
Missionary John Harris submitted a sworn affidavit in 1905 confirming its authenticity.
The photo was taken by Alice Seeley Harris, who also documented dozens of similar mutilations.
Multiple eyewitnesses confirmed that ABIR rubber agents were responsible.
The idea that these photos were faked is a modern revisionist myth. The Congo Reform Association backed them with testimony, documents, and government inquiries.
If we have: Photographic evidence, Eyewitnesses, Government reports (including the 1905 Belgian Commission),Firsthand accounts from missionaries, diplomats, and Congolese themselves…
…then why should we believe one anecdote from a soldier (Bricusse) over that mountain of credible evidence?
While I agree that there's many lies and exaggerations about colonialism to foment white guilt. I think this article goes overboard on the other side.
We should be able to acknowledge that Arab Zanzibaris also did bad things and enslaved the people that it was closer to 1M instead of 10M died, AND admit that the Congo Free State was full of atrocities at the same time.
The sad uncomfortable truth was that this area was hell due to Zanzibari plantation slavery and that King Leopold's rule was also bad and BOTH chopped off African hands.
I’m not very educated on this matter, but I found it quite telling that the only citations in this essay were from a single man, Professor Bruce Gilley. Bruce Gilley is a professor of political science, not history.
It's sad to see how much lies they told us.
Very much so
Judging from his biography, Hochschild was an anti-White activist from the start. No surprise that he would smear King Leopold.
Thanks for setting the record straight.
Yes, he very much was
Why do you think they lie so much about colonialism? My thought is there’s a level of animosity of seeing someone else make something nice/great when you couldn’t.
Almost like a deadbeat parent seeing their child raised to be successful by someone else.
It really is odd how much academics hate seeing Europeans drag others into civilization
I think they hate the very idea of the civilizing mission because it reinforces the concept that there are standards
So basically “Don’t judge me” as a Grand Strategy. Resulting in the collapse of civilization and millions living in squalor. Thanks libtards 💀
Indeed. If you look at why they hated Rhodesia, for example, it was that the voting system was a fair standard the lowest common denominators stood no chance of passing
The chaotic and ill-conceived Belgian withdrawal from the Congo had reverberations across the wider region. The Rhodesians had set up an evacuation corridor for fleeing Belgians during the Congo Crisis of 1960-1965, offering them sanctuary in their homes. Events such as the Stanleyville, Congo, slaughter of whites in 1964 were a significant factor in the Rhodesian Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965 and thus the Congo Crisis contributed to a much greater global crisis.
There is a consistent distortion of facts by academia and other media who always twist the narrative of colonialism to fit their rigid orthodoxy. Mutilation of limbs was common during the Rhodesian Bush War where it was perpetrated on black rural villagers by the Mugabe and Nkomo militias. A speciality was cutting out a foetus from a pregnant woman and forcing the villagers to eat it, a modern form of cannibalism that was still in existence in Rhodesia during the late 1970's in black on black terrorism. It is therefore all too easy to imagine that such tactics were perpetrated by black militia or slave traders in the Congo rather than being directed by Leopold from a palace in Belgium.
On the interesting reference to the Arab slave trade in the Congo: In southern and central Africa the Arabs preceded Europeans by hundreds of years, an obvious historical fact but one that is somehow excluded from the orthodox narrative disseminated by academics that blame all the evils of the world on European colonialism.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment! True on all counts. The mainstream’s decision to ignore the sins of the Arabs is particularly infuriating
Every midwit on social media has had a clickbait article in their feed like “6 reasons why king Leopold was worse than Hitler. Number 3 will shock you!!” Obviously it’s all fake, like most pop history (smallpox blankets for example)
This is a good read on the Congos colonialism
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/king-hochschilds-hoax/
Thanks! That article is written by the same author of the book cited here. Both are good
Make sure you watch the documentary Empire of Dust if you haven’t. It’s a great look at modern day Congo from a Chinese perspective.
My wife is from Belgium and she has lots of stories about Congo and Congolese people since the country still has somewhat of a connection there even today.
Oh yes, that one is great. Thanks!
Hey, go fuck yourself. Pretty much every claim in this piece is so far off base that it is not only not right, it's not even wrong.
Excellent work, personally I've never been into the White Man's Burden stuff and leading the Third World into civilization. We should focus on our own interests and allow others to rise or fall on their own.
Kinda. There are a lot of mineral resources there that are rare and somewhat needed. Getting them is easier when the population doesn’t hate you and is relatively affluent/not getting eaten by cannibals
But yes it can go too far