AP: Massacre in Congo

[jnhay]

I would certainly agree that it is evil.

And yes, it is pointless to us. But when people like us, people who have lived in a stable, well-adjusted (relatively), safe, environment with access to pretty much anything we can imagine and want, just write these atrocities off without trying to understand the underpinnings of the cultural mindset and just say "well they're retards"...well, I think that is extremely ignorant.

I also think that easy dismissals like that always come back to bite us in the butt...

Well yeah, there's more to it than just saying they're stupid, and I would say that it's more the cultural mindset that is stupid rather than the individual who was brought up to believe that these atrocities are somehow justified or necessary. I think most people would admit that if they grew up in the same environment, with the same influences, that they'd act the same way. I just hope that doesn't justify any of this in any way.

[jpyaks3]

did you notice a common theme in all of your examples? all of them happened after the colonisers LEFT and left thise retards to run their own show. One could easily argue that had the euros never left we would not see these sorts of things.

The Un is a joke and frankly the number of peacekeepers killed in africa is not remotely on the same scale as those who have died at the hands of Israel, are you joking?

Wow, you are pretty ignorant if you can't understand why the fighting broke out after the colonial powers left. They set up a system which fostered infighting and dividing the population along ethnic lines often giving special privileges to the minority and making them the ruling class while oppressing the majority. You really need to read up on colonialism if you can't see why fighting broke out after the colonial powers left. They left states with no infrastructure, they left a minority with all the skills and ability to create wealth/run the government, they left a system of discrimination, and they left these states poor and resource depleted. Furthermore in many cases they funded and supported one set of rebels and made the situation worse. They have also supported and put into power genocidal dictators and overthrew governments to get their guy in charge.

But then again in your mind the colonial powers should have never left they should have oppressed the majority of the population and held down the population of an entire continent.

[jpyaks3]

Well yeah, there's more to it than just saying they're stupid, and I would say that it's more the cultural mindset that is stupid rather than the individual who was brought up to believe that these atrocities are somehow justified or necessary. I think most people would admit that if they grew up in the same environment, with the same influences, that they'd act the same way. I just hope that doesn't justify any of this in any way.

Has anyone in this thread said that these atrocities are justified or necessary?

[KingGibbs]

and here we are ****ing about Health Care reform.

[Prosperity]

did you notice a common theme in all of your examples? all of them happened after the colonisers LEFT and left thise retards to run their own show. One could easily argue that had the euros never left we would not see these sorts of things.

The Un is a joke and frankly the number of peacekeepers killed in africa is not remotely on the same scale as those who have died at the hands of Israel, are you joking?

I wonder why people try to opine on things they have no clue about...

massacres happened all the time when the Belgians raped the Congo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#Leopold.27s_rule

Severed hands

Native labourers who failed to meet rubber collection quotas were often punished by having their hands cut off.

Villages who failed to meet the rubber collection quotas were required to pay the remaining amount in cut hands, where each hand would prove a kill. Sometimes the hands were collected by the soldiers of the Force Publique, sometimes by the villages themselves. There were even small wars where villages attacked neighboring villages to gather hands, since their rubber quotas were too unrealistic to fill.

One junior white officer described a raid to punish a village that had protested. The white officer in command "ordered us to cut off the heads of the men and hang them on the village palisades ... and to hang the women and the children on the palisade in the form of a cross."[7] After seeing a native killed for the first time, a Danish missionary wrote: "The soldier said 'Don't take this to heart so much. They kill us if we don't bring the rubber. The Commissioner has promised us if we have plenty of hands he will shorten our service.'"[8] In Forbath's words:

The baskets of severed hands, set down at the feet of the European post commanders, became the symbol of the Congo Free State. ... The collection of hands became an end in itself. Force Publique soldiers brought them to the stations in place of rubber; they even went out to harvest them instead of rubber... They became a sort of currency. They came to be used to make up for shortfalls in rubber quotas, to replace... the people who were demanded for the forced labour gangs; and the Force Publique soldiers were paid their bonuses on the basis of how many hands they collected.

In theory, each right hand proved a killing. In practice, soldiers sometimes "cheated" by simply cutting off the hand and leaving the victim to live or die. More than a few survivors later said that they had lived through a massacre by acting dead, not moving even when their hands were severed, and waiting till the soldiers left before seeking help. In some instances a soldier could shorten his service term by bringing more hands than the other soldiers, which led to widespread mutilations and dismemberment.

[edit]Death toll

Estimates of the deaths during the period of Leopold's control vary considerably. The reduction of the population of the Congo was noted by all who have compared the country at the beginning of the Free State's rule and the beginning of Belgian rule in 1908. Estimates of contemporary observers, as well as some modern scholars (such as Jan Vansina, professor emeritus of history and anthropology at the University of Wisconsin), suggest that the population halved during this period.[9] Other dispute this; the scholars at the Museum of Central Africa in Tervuen, Belgium find a decrease of 15% over the first forty years of colonial rule (up to the census of 1924).

According to British diplomat Roger Casement, this depopulation had four main causes: "indiscriminate war", starvation, reduction of births and diseases.[10] Sleeping sickness ravaged the country and was used by the regime to account for demographic decrease. Opponents of King Leopold's rule stated, however, that the administration itself was to be considered responsible for the spreading of this dreadful epidemic.[11] One of the greatest specialists on sleeping sickness, P.G. Janssens, Professor at the Ghent University, wrote:[citation needed]

It seems reasonable to admit the existence on the territories of the Congo Free State, of French Congo and Angola of a certain number of permanent sources that have been put again in activity by the brutal changement of ancestral conditions and ways of life that has accompanied the occupation of the territories.

In the absence of a census (the first was taken in 1924) to provide an opening figure,[12] it is even more difficult to quantify the population loss of the period. Despite this, Forbath claimed it was at least 5 million[13]; Adam Hochschild, and Isidore Ndaywel è Nziem, 10 million;[14][15] the Encyclopædia Britannica[citation needed] and Fredric Wertham's 1966 book "A Sign For Cain: An Exploration of Human Violence"[16] estimate that the population of the Congo dropped from 30 million to 8 and 8.5 million, respectively, in that period. This wild estimate has gained currency with many journalists. An example is The New York Times reporting that that "Under the reign of terror instituted by King Leopold II of Belgium (who ran the Congo Free State as his personal fief from 1885 to 1908), the population of the Congo was reduced by half—as many as 8 million Africans."[17]

Despite journalistic sensationalism, determining precisely how many people died is next to impossible as no accurate records exist. Louis and Stengers state that population figures at the start of Leopold's control are only "wild guesses", while E.D. Morel's attempt and others at coming to a figure for population losses were "but figments of the imagination".

In 1900 Africa had between 90 million (African Studies Review 49.1 (2006) 179–181) and 133 million people (World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision).

seems like you have no idea what you are talking about

[Thiebear]

and here we are ****ing about Health Care reform.

The Congo has a Great Healthcare system on paper.

[Ryman of the North]

In the seventies and eighties the bleeding hearts and hippies were all chanting freedom for Africa at any cost. In south africa and rhodesia there were plans made to slowly transfer power and maintain some sort of infrastructure, but the ANC and other groups wanted power NOW and forced it through quickly.This meant little to no infrastructure, whose fault was that? It was no less human nature than colonisation was. everyone wants power NOW not later.

Blaming white folks for doing what white folks do (colonising) is counter productive and a typical left wing ploy, its like an alchoholic blaming the booze for all their problems. Im not saying colonisation didnt have a profound effect on these people I am saying that if they arent willing to step up to get past it then there isnt anything WE can do short of going in and setting up a puppet dictator (which we wont do because most of africa is not resource rich).

The belgians and french were pretty harsh, matter of fact most colonisers were, perhaps you should read up on american history before lecturing me on africa, but the severe intertribal violence was much more rare then than it is today, for the simple fact that the colonisers didnt tolerate it.

The fact is that these people kill themselves, they may be doing it because of grudges formed from colonial times but if they cant get past those things how the hell does anyone expect them to run their own show?

[Prosperity]

listen guy, you said they weren't doing this when the europeans were there. The europeans were clearly doing the exact thing you said they weren't doing.

second, are you talking about South Africa now, isn't this thread about the Congo? If you want a South Africa thread start one, but as far as I know there aren't massacres or genocides going on in South Africa right now... despite giving them freedom/ending apartheid at all costs.

third, get off your high horse... you always switch to your favorite stratagem of claiming to be some sort of expert because you are native American. I don't care if you are native American, bro. Whether or not Americans did ****ty things to Native Americans doesn't make you any less wrong in this thread.

[Special K]

Well yeah, there's more to it than just saying they're stupid, and I would say that it's more the cultural mindset that is stupid rather than the individual who was brought up to believe that these atrocities are somehow justified or necessary. I think most people would admit that if they grew up in the same environment, with the same influences, that they'd act the same way. I just hope that doesn't justify any of this in any way.

No one is justifying any of the atrocities being committed throughout Africa.

Ryman of the North - You are clueless. I cringe reading your posts.

[Larry]

Ryman of the North - You are clueless. I cringe reading your posts.

Observing that there is a simple and obvious solution for this problem.

[rincewind]

So Ryman, if I came up to you and punched you in the face - would I be able to say that you punching me back just shows your ignorant and violent tendecies? I mean, afterall, my punch was in the past and we should all just move on. Right?

[Larry]

Amazing the number of things that a Tailgate thread can spin into.

It's the African's fault.

It because of colonialism.

It's them liberals and their freedom thing.

Let's talk about Israel.

It's the UN's fault.

So, about Tim Tebow . . .

[Ryman of the North]

listen guy, you said they weren't doing this when the europeans were there. The europeans were clearly doing the exact thing you said they weren't doing.

second, are you talking about South Africa now, isn't this thread about the Congo? If you want a South Africa thread start one, but as far as I know there aren't massacres or genocides going on in South Africa right now... despite giving them freedom/ending apartheid at all costs.

third, get off your high horse... you always switch to your favorite stratagem of claiming to be some sort of expert because you are native American. I don't care if you are native American, bro. Whether or not Americans did ****ty things to Native Americans doesn't make you any less wrong in this thread.

I said they didnt have this level of tribal violence when then euros were there, however if you want to dig even farther back feel free to read up on the zulu empire, africa has been harsh on africans since the dawn of time, blaming all their woes on the big bad white man is a cop out plain and simple.

as for your post about genocides , define genocides, then go and google "township massacre" im not your history teacher, if you want to debate beyond wiki and semantics im ok with that.

and my being native has nothing to do with it, the fact that American history is filled with dirty little secrets is.

[Ryman of the North]

No one is justifying any of the atrocities being committed throughout Africa.

Ryman of the North - You are clueless. I cringe reading your posts.

Sorry that Im not a bleeding heart liberal who thinks that all the worlds problems are the fault of white people. at some point people need to man up and take responsability for their own actions rather than constantly blaming them on their past.

[Ryman of the North]

So Ryman, if I came up to you and punched you in the face - would I be able to say that you punching me back just shows your ignorant and violent tendecies? I mean, afterall, my punch was in the past and we should all just move on. Right?

LOL if I punched you back immediately we could probly laugh , have a beer and move on, if you waited a decade and then snuck up on me and Cut my hand off and then said " ten years ago you punched me in the face", well I would think that thats a different story.

[Ryman of the North]

Observing that there is a simple and obvious solution for this problem.

One would think so, but then she wouldnt be able to try and push her liberal leanings on me by implying that she knows more because she is a missionary in madagascar. I have never been a missionary in a foreign country however I have worked with impoverished and oppressed people far closer to home.

[Larry]

One would think so, but then she wouldnt be able to try and push her liberal leanings on me . . .

Speaking only for myself, but I suspect that she abandoned any possibility of anybody teaching you anything, long ago.

She's not writing for your benefit.

But, that's just a theory.

[jpyaks3]

I said they didnt have this level of tribal violence when then euros were there, however if you want to dig even farther back feel free to read up on the zulu empire, africa has been harsh on africans since the dawn of time, blaming all their woes on the big bad white man is a cop out plain and simple.

as for your post about genocides , define genocides, then go and google "township massacre" im not your history teacher, if you want to debate beyond wiki and semantics im ok with that.

and my being native has nothing to do with it, the fact that American history is filled with dirty little secrets is.

The United States of Americas history has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Why the **** do you keep bringing it up every time you don't want to make a real argument.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about on this issue and you aren't even addressing peoples points just going to the same old cop out of you can't speak on something because your an American and the United States has treated people horribly in the past. That is such a bull**** cop out and adds nothing to the discussion except to show you don't want to address other peoples arguments.

[Destino]

The harshness required to turn places as forgone as the worst areas of Africa around doesn't exist within the power structures of the modern world. No advanced state capable of exporting it's power has the stomach to do what needs to be done over there. You can't beg and plead with cultures that far gone and that willing to commit the most horrific acts of violence on one and other to stop. The people behind such movements need to be eradicated as thoroughly as the Nazi... crushed to a complete surrender and hunted down and jailed even after victory is achieved. This list would include child soldiers unfortunately.

Then the question remains: what stops it from happening again? The underlying cultural differences, lack of infrastructure, and social acceptance of violence remains. I'd think you'd need reeducation of the younger population and a functional government... but even then historically no successful society has existed. Can a population that has never created a functional nation self govern? Does that will exist?

Sometimes I see these things and think that respecting the existence of failed states isn't a great idea. That perhaps some of them would be better served if conquered by stronger states. It certainly can't get much worse in some places.

[Ryman of the North]

I just did

You stated pretty strongly that everything in africa is due to colonisation, a typical left wing liberal viewpoint. You ignore the whole free will thing and assume that no people who have ever been colonisation are able to rationally deal with it and thusly none of this is really the africans fault. Its the exact same argument that some people use to excuse abusers, "well they were abused so its not their fault". some of us who believe that people have free will find that pretty annoying. Frankly at this point almost 30 years after the fact, if people cant move past the past and continue destructive behaviour then its on them. I believe I already made that point. now go back to your school study group where everyone has the same opinion and you can all discuss your white mans guilt ad nauseum, some of us dont buy into that.

The history of the united states has a direct bearing on this discussion, someone else made a point that I responded to, if you dont like looking in the mirror when discussing historical atrocities then I would suggest not reading the tailgate.

sorry that was to JPyak who apparently doesnt bother to read before responding.

[Ryman of the North]

The harshness required to turn places as forgone as the worst areas of Africa around doesn't exist within the power structures of the modern world. No advanced state capable of exporting it's power has the stomach to do what needs to be done over there. You can't beg and plead with cultures that far gone and that willing to commit the most horrific acts of violence on one and other to stop. The people behind such movements need to be eradicated as thoroughly as the Nazi... crushed to a complete surrender and hunted down and jailed even after victory is achieved. This list would include child soldiers unfortunately.

Then the question remains: what stops it from happening again? The underlying cultural differences, lack of infrastructure, and social acceptance of violence remains. I'd think you'd need reeducation of the younger population and a functional government... but even then historically no successful society has existed. Can a population that has never created a functional nation self govern? Does that will exist?

Sometimes I see these things and think that respecting the existence of failed states isn't a great idea. That perhaps some of them would be better served if conquered by stronger states. It certainly can't get much worse in some places.

That was a great post.

[jpyaks3]

I just did

You stated pretty strongly that everything in africa is due to colonisation, a typical left wing liberal viewpoint. You ignore the whole free will thing and assume that no people who have ever been colonisation are able to rationally deal with it and thusly none of this is really the africans fault. Its the exact same argument that some people use to excuse abusers, "well they were abused so its not their fault". some of us who believe that people have free will find that pretty annoying. Frankly at this point almost 30 years after the fact, if people cant move past the past and continue destructive behaviour then its on them. I believe I already made that point. now go back to your school study group where everyone has the same opinion and you can all discuss your white mans guilt ad nauseum, some of us dont buy into that.

The history of the united states has a direct bearing on this discussion, someone else made a point that I responded to, if you dont like looking in the mirror when discussing historical atrocities then I would suggest not reading the tailgate.

sorry that was to JPyak who apparently doesnt bother to read before responding.

I stated that colonization and the actions of the colonial powers goes a long way in explaining why the region is as ****ed up as it is. You take it as me excusing every action in all these wars which is nowhere near what I am arguing, but since you can't make a counter argument you have to mis-characterize my position in order to rant about irrelevant things. How about you try to actually address my points instead of making up **** about what I am saying.

The power structure created by the colonial powers was created specifically to cause tension and hatred between ethnic groups it was created specifically to destroy any unity of the population and it was implemented in brutal fashions for long periods of time. There is a reason that this ethnic strife occurs in areas where colonization is the strongest. There is a very strong correlation between colonial powers and the ethnic strife that follows you can even break it down farther and the fighting occurs on even more specific lines along the lines of which colonial power ruled the land. This isn't just random violence this is the result of a systemic campaign to turn the populations against itself on ethnic lines to make the areas easier to control for the colonial power. If you force two sides to fight for decades then leave do you think there aren't going to be ongoing feuds and fighting between the sides.

The Hutu's and Tutsi's are a perfect example. The way the Belgians ruled placed the minority Tutsi's in total control and oppressed the Hutu's who were the majority. Belgium did this to make it easier to handle their colony, this happened all across Africa. It created lines of hatred because of the blatantly unfair treatment of one ethnic group over another and placed all the power in a minoritys hands. It was designed specifically to break people apart on ethnic lines. Once Belgium left shockingly there was fighting to the point of the genocide along the ethnic lines. Now are you trying to argue that Belgian rule and the way the Belgians ruled was one of the main reasons for the genocide?

The United States of America committed a genocide against the Native Americans I believe this and it is certainly a black mark in our nations history. However you use this to try to discredit everyones views who don't agree with you. Its utter bull**** and you have pulled that card in the threads about Israel as well as this thread. The fact that you can't put together a coherent argument without ad hominem attacks and red herrings is blatantly obvious.

[jnhay]

No one is justifying any of the atrocities being committed throughout Africa.

I was referring to my own comment. I didn't want to say "These people are a product of their society" like I was making an excuse.

[Koolblue13]

So, instead of the bickering in this thread, what do you guys think it would take, to bring peace to Africa?

[Ryman of the North]

JPYAK- if this happened in a vacuum where there had only been natives and colonisation then your point would be more valid, however given the africans own history (and yes there were african empires in antiquity) I somehow doubt that as much can be attributed to european imperialism as the left would have us believe.

I never said that it didnt have an effect I questioned the extent, and frankly I still do.

as for what can bring peace to africa? they have to want peace and sadly the silent majority does but the vocal minority does not.