Belgian Congo

[Jebus]

Second, Belgium did nothing about the atrocities committed by Leopold's government,

The Belgian people only found out about the atrocities when the rest of the world did. There wasn't any secret Belgian conspiracy to cover the things Leopold did up, and when the Belgians finally found out there really was quite the uproar.

they tried to get some of the profits that he was making and keeping away from the Belgian people.

What? No.
Or perhaps you are referring to the fact that the Belgian government lent Leopold money.
Far from trying to get a piece of the cake, though. There's not all that much profit to be made in giving someone else your money.

They didn't take control of the Congo until after Leopold died, when he left it entrusted to the Belgian government in his will.

When the Belgian government lent Leopold money in 1889 and 1895, the government asked in return the right to annex the Congo in 1901. However, when 1901 came along, the government refused.
When the Belgian people found out about Leopold's atrocities in 1904, though, public outrage mounted. A concerted campaign by Belgian citizens finally forced the government to take over the Congo from Leopold in 1908, and Leopold died the next year - in 1909.

Get your facts straight.

The Belgians, in turn, were in no hurry to right the wrongs committed against the Congolese. WWII brought an immense demand for rubber, the Congo's primary export. Slave labor continues. The Belgian government ultimately lost interest when demand for rubber slid after other methods of getting rubber were established.

O rly? Proof please.

After the Belgians left there were piecemeal nods towards democracy, but these moves were crushed when Mobutu came to power with US backing as an anti-communist dictator. More massacres, oppression, etc. You get the picure. Hence, the lack of population growth from the end of Leopold's reign til now is explained- years of dictatorship have made the Congo one of the most impovershed nations in the world. In the end, the blame of the Congo's ills on imperialist forces is justified. After years of toiling under the Belgian yoke, the Congo was subjected to good old American oppression.

Then explain to me how, if there was indeed cruel and bloody opression from the Belgain government, mortality rates dropped enormously in 1945-1960?

Those of you who defend Belgium simply because you are Belgian are sick- you are not responsible for the crimes committed by your country before your birth. You have a choice of saying "what was Belgian done wrong, what can we do right," or engaging in an erotic sort of patriotic obsession to defend your country even in the face of the harshest facts. You chose the latter. Take it from an American- my country has committed some of the worst acts of this century (and continues to do so). While I consider myself patriotic, I reject the actions my country has taken. I understand George W. Bush represents me, and accept that, but still oppose his politics vehemently. Why can't you accept the crimes of your nation? They will not be laid on your shoulders, after all. People like you are no different than flag-waving Americans who demand "four more wars" and defend actions such as Vietnam or the modern war on terror.

I do not defend Belgian Congo out of patriottical reasons. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there [/i]are[/i] no Belgians, so Belgian chauvinism seems kind of unlikely to exist. Belgium is as natural a construction as Berlusconi's face.
However, I am the child of creoles. And they, and both my grandparent, have been scolded and looked down upon because of their colonial past. It's pretty funny, really: as soon as your mention you're an ex-colonial to someone, Pavlov's dog goes 'arf!' and you can see the expression on their face change.
Throughout the years, I have seen the attitude of my parents and grandparents towards that attitude change. They just don't defend themselves anymore. They let it flow over them, even though they know it's not justified. And so, with barely anyone to defend these people, public opion about what happened in Congo is constantly changing for the worst.

And I can't have that.

You just have the advantage of coming from a nation that has had little power to do evil in its history.

True. We're the Poles of Western Europe!

Oh, and Belgium actively tried to cover up the atrocities of Leopold's Congo. I believe it wasn't until the mid-80s that the Belgian government finally released thousands of documents, and not without a fight either, spelling out the extent of the horrors that were seen in the Congo.

Well, allthough there may not be something like Belgian national pride, there is something like Belgian national shame. Also, I think it released that late mainly to make sure none of the people involded in Leopold's Congo were still alive to be linched.
Likewise, the Belgian govenment still hasn't released reports, interregations and testaments about the terror that was inflicted to the Belgian colonials when they had to flee Congo in 1960.

 

[Sander]

Since you decided that my arguments are apparently beneath you, I'll just leave you alone about those.

I do not defend Belgian Congo out of patriottical reasons. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there [/i]are[/i] no Belgians, so Belgian chauvinism seems kind of unlikely to exist. Belgium is as natural a construction as Berlusconi's face.

Hah. Apparently you've never met Belgians around Dutchies. Trust me, you have national pride, just as much as Dutchies do. It isn't as much as some other countries, but it sure as hell does exist.
Also note that the popularity of Vlaams Belang/Blok shows that this isn't really true.

However, I am the child of creoles. And they, and both my grandparent, have been scolded and looked down upon because of their colonial past. It's pretty funny, really: as soon as your mention you're an ex-colonial to someone, Pavlov's dog goes 'arf!' and you can see the expression on their face change.
Throughout the years, I have seen the attitude of my parents and grandparents towards that attitude change. They just don't defend themselves anymore. They let it flow over them, even though they know it's not justified. And so, with barely anyone to defend these people, public opion about what happened in Congo is constantly changing for the worst.

So that's your problem with all this. Mkay. Don't think, please, that I"m one of those, Jebus, because I'm not. I don't give a shit whether you or your parents lived in Belgian Congo, and as I've said before, I wasn't judging Belgian people. I try to look at everything as objectively as possible, and I don't think I've failed to that here. I'll go read up on it, though.

 

[billcd]

Second, Belgium did nothing about the atrocities committed by Leopold's government,

The Belgian people only found out about the atrocities when the rest of the world did. There wasn't any secret Belgian conspiracy to cover the things Leopold did up, and when the Belgians finally found out there really was quite the uproar.

they tried to get some of the profits that he was making and keeping away from the Belgian people.

What? No.
Or perhaps you are referring to the fact that the Belgian government lent Leopold money.
Far from trying to get a piece of the cake, though. There's not all that much profit to be made in giving someone else your money.

They didn't take control of the Congo until after Leopold died, when he left it entrusted to the Belgian government in his will.

When the Belgian government lent Leopold money in 1889 and 1895, the government asked in return the right to annex the Congo in 1901. However, when 1901 came along, the government refused.
When the Belgian people found out about Leopold's atrocities in 1904, though, public outrage mounted. A concerted campaign by Belgian citizens finally forced the government to take over the Congo from Leopold in 1908, and Leopold died the next year - in 1909.

Get your facts straight.

The Belgians, in turn, were in no hurry to right the wrongs committed against the Congolese. WWII brought an immense demand for rubber, the Congo's primary export. Slave labor continues. The Belgian government ultimately lost interest when demand for rubber slid after other methods of getting rubber were established.

O rly? Proof please.

I'm basing this off of various books, etc I've read. King Leopold's Ghost, Adam Hochschild, very well written and documented. Backs up everything I've said. Other than saying that, arguing facts is kinda pointless.

After the Belgians left there were piecemeal nods towards democracy, but these moves were crushed when Mobutu came to power with US backing as an anti-communist dictator. More massacres, oppression, etc. You get the picure. Hence, the lack of population growth from the end of Leopold's reign til now is explained- years of dictatorship have made the Congo one of the most impovershed nations in the world. In the end, the blame of the Congo's ills on imperialist forces is justified. After years of toiling under the Belgian yoke, the Congo was subjected to good old American oppression.

Then explain to me how, if there was indeed cruel and bloody opression from the Belgain government, mortality rates dropped enormously in 1945-1960?

After WWII, slave labor practices declined because rubber was no longer profitable, so Belgium then instituted democratic reforms. Which fail. See:Mobutu. Very simple to explain. And the fact that mortality rates only began to drop after WWII, after the decline of massive demand for rubber, points to the use of slave labor to provide for war needs. This is very intuitive.

Those of you who defend Belgium simply because you are Belgian are sick- you are not responsible for the crimes committed by your country before your birth. You have a choice of saying "what was Belgian done wrong, what can we do right," or engaging in an erotic sort of patriotic obsession to defend your country even in the face of the harshest facts. You chose the latter. Take it from an American- my country has committed some of the worst acts of this century (and continues to do so). While I consider myself patriotic, I reject the actions my country has taken. I understand George W. Bush represents me, and accept that, but still oppose his politics vehemently. Why can't you accept the crimes of your nation? They will not be laid on your shoulders, after all. People like you are no different than flag-waving Americans who demand "four more wars" and defend actions such as Vietnam or the modern war on terror.

I do not defend Belgian Congo out of patriottical reasons. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there [/i]are[/i] no Belgians, so Belgian chauvinism seems kind of unlikely to exist. Belgium is as natural a construction as Berlusconi's face.
However, I am the child of creoles. And they, and both my grandparent, have been scolded and looked down upon because of their colonial past. It's pretty funny, really: as soon as your mention you're an ex-colonial to someone, Pavlov's dog goes 'arf!' and you can see the expression on their face change.
Throughout the years, I have seen the attitude of my parents and grandparents towards that attitude change. They just don't defend themselves anymore. They let it flow over them, even though they know it's not justified. And so, with barely anyone to defend these people, public opion about what happened in Congo is constantly changing for the worst.

And I can't have that.

...Well, allthough there may not be something like Belgian national pride, there is something like Belgian national shame. Also, I think it released that late mainly to make sure none of the people involded in Leopold's Congo were still alive to be linched.
Likewise, the Belgian govenment still hasn't released reports, interregations and testaments about the terror that was inflicted to the Belgian colonials when they had to flee Congo in 1960.

So, you're a self-hating Creole, which logically means that 150 years of oppression inflicted on the Congo from the ourside world (not just Belgium) had no impact on the problems plaguing the region today, right? No one said Belgians suck, they should die. Defending yourself personally is one thing, denying history is entirely another.

And why should we pity Belgians fleeing the Congo? Should we also feel bad for those American GIs who had to airlift out of Vietnam? Or the whites in South Africa, who went through SO MUCH difficulty giving up apartheid. Please. You have food, shelter, and safety. Do you want to go live as a Congolese? It ain't fun. But you refuse to acknowledge the pain inflicted on this nation by the world. I ask again: why?

 

[Jebus]

Since you decided that my arguments are apparently beneath you,

It's not that, really. It just didn't seem to go anywhere

I'm basing this off of various books, etc I've read. King Leopold's Ghost, Adam Hochschild, very well written and documented. Backs up everything I've said.

I've never read these two, but I did hear Leopold's Ghost was rather biased.

Other than saying that, arguing facts is kinda pointless.

Facts are facts, friend. If you are dragging in facts to support your views, and they prove to be false, that kinda tears down your agument, doesn't it?

Very simple to explain. And the fact that mortality rates only began to drop after WWII, after the decline of massive demand for rubber, points to the use of slave labor to provide for war needs. This is very intuitive.

It could of course also point to the fact that Belgium only started building out infrastucture after WWII, doesn't it? That in the times of WWI, when Belgium was completely destroyed, and the following Great Depression Belgium simply didn't have the funds to build out that infrastructure, doesn't it?
You have a very strange kind of reason there, you know. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc; as they say.

so Belgium then instituted democratic reforms. Which fail. See:Mobutu

Whitch also falls into the that category.

Since you're obviously so erudite, you might have also read that Belgium, when the congolese rebels demanded independance, first suggested to use a transitional period of 30 years, in which Belgium might build up the infrastructure for a democratically run country. However, the rebels refused (as seems fairly logical in hindsight - 30 years is a damn long time. However, that doesn't matter, since that's a hindsights fallacy.), and became even more violent towards the Belgian colonials. Because the Belgian government could no longer insure the safety of it's officials in Congo, and because the USA and the SU were already turning Congo into their own little playground, the Belgian government decided the best thing to do was to get out of there as fast as they could before they got themselves into an international mess a country the size of Belgium would be in severe trouble. They declared independance in 6 months.
Then, chaos followed. Lumumba and the other guy were both not prepared to create order, the army mutinied, and regional tensions ran high. Belgium tried to send paratroopers to help restore order when the province of Katanga tried to seccede, but that was called an attempt of the Belgian government to restore colonialism, so they had to leave again. And when the Belgian government funded certain groups who fought the Marxist rebels (just as the Americans did, actually), that was also called an attempt to restore colonialism.
Then, tired of the whole ordeal, and since they started to realise that, whatever they did, it would be seen as an attempt to 'restore colonialism', the Belgian government said "fuck it" and let the Congolese to sort out their own mess. Soon afterwards, Mubutu gained power.

But of course, they're no point in debating facts when you can just give quote unquote 'solid' arguments like yours, right?

So, you're a self-hating Creole, which logically means that 150 years of oppression inflicted on the Congo from the ourside world (not just Belgium) had no impact on the problems plaguing the region today, right?

Gosh, your ad hominem attacks never cease to amaze me.
You must be the king of debaters where you come from.

No one said Belgians suck, they should die.

Woo-hoo.

Defending yourself personally is one thing, denying history is entirely another.

I'm not 'denying' history, bill. There will always be two kinds of history, the history of the 'collective memory', tainted by tons of propaganda; and the history one discovers when he looks at the 'bigger picture'.
I will always remember a discussion in that vein I had about two moths ago, by the way. I was trying to prove the general beliefs of the Nazi's were not some kind of temporary, localized barbarism of the Germans, but a worldwide respected and popular scientific current. Boy, did I get buckets of shit over me.
I call it 'emotional' history, really. Or perhaps 'Pavlov's dog' history.

And why should we pity Belgians fleeing the Congo? Should we also feel bad for those American GIs who had to airlift out of Vietnam? Or the whites in South Africa, who went through SO MUCH difficulty giving up apartheid. Please. You have food, shelter, and safety. Do you want to go live as a Congolese? It ain't fun. But you refuse to acknowledge the pain inflicted on this nation by the world. I ask again: why?

Another brilliant example of your flawed reasoning. I believe this kind of fallacy is called a 'straw man argument'. If one were to answer to your question, then one would therefore aknowledge that Vietnam and South-Africa were identical to Belgian Congo, right? Very, very clever of you - but unfortunately not everybody falls for that demagogic shit you pull.


Oh, and also a argumentum ad misericordiam, and 'guilt by association'.

Here, try this page, and try to come up with some decent debating techniques the next time you try to waste my time.