You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.28 AVERAGE
4.28 AVERAGE
dark
informative
sad
medium-paced
dark
informative
medium-paced
While I understand the massive value this book has held in the pantheon of historical works by (mostly) white writers depicting the colonial and neo-colonial rule of the European metropole on the African continent, it contains far too many of the author's personal biases and political opinions to be an effective take down of a system that is still very much replicated today. Examples include random asides which feel the need to discuss communism in the same breath as colonialism and fascism, the celebration of the reformist white characters even when their blind patriotism puts them squarely in the wrong, and, for some odd reason, a refusal to place the lion share of the current political situation in the Congo on colonial rule.
Hochschild mentions the lack of writing from African voices to fill out the stage of the Belgian Congo, and that is not squarely my problem with the novel. Rather, I am frustrated with how much the narrative does end up lending itself to the white savior narrative, especially this quote from the book which drove me livid: "Most of the Africans who fought this battle in the Congo perished, their very names unrecorded. In a sense, we honor Morel and Casement in their stead." Execuse me? This is the kind of ridicolous statement that belies the deep rooted ideological viewpoint of the project. Not to mention in the afterword where he paternalistically mentions Ireland and South Korea as examples of formerly colonized or subjugated territory which have now become successful beacons of progress, conveniently forgetting or not knowing the massive amount of help these countries have received, both publicly (or primarily in South Korea's case) clandestinely.
This book is an easy and enjoyable read and in some ways I fear that makes it a bit dangerous. Non-fiction does not need to be character driven to be enjoyable and I find that it is often to a works detriment when it is. It provides too large an oppurtunity for writers to project their own viewpoints on a time period and risks crowding out the facts with larger than life figures. I think part of the reason this book has been so well regarded is the attrocities of the Congo are too large to cause the book to fall into this camp, but oh boy does Hochschild try.
Hochschild mentions the lack of writing from African voices to fill out the stage of the Belgian Congo, and that is not squarely my problem with the novel. Rather, I am frustrated with how much the narrative does end up lending itself to the white savior narrative, especially this quote from the book which drove me livid: "Most of the Africans who fought this battle in the Congo perished, their very names unrecorded. In a sense, we honor Morel and Casement in their stead." Execuse me? This is the kind of ridicolous statement that belies the deep rooted ideological viewpoint of the project. Not to mention in the afterword where he paternalistically mentions Ireland and South Korea as examples of formerly colonized or subjugated territory which have now become successful beacons of progress, conveniently forgetting or not knowing the massive amount of help these countries have received, both publicly (or primarily in South Korea's case) clandestinely.
This book is an easy and enjoyable read and in some ways I fear that makes it a bit dangerous. Non-fiction does not need to be character driven to be enjoyable and I find that it is often to a works detriment when it is. It provides too large an oppurtunity for writers to project their own viewpoints on a time period and risks crowding out the facts with larger than life figures. I think part of the reason this book has been so well regarded is the attrocities of the Congo are too large to cause the book to fall into this camp, but oh boy does Hochschild try.
Absolutely brutal but blisteringly good. Hochschild just became an insta-read for me, I think.
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
adventurous
informative
sad
tense
medium-paced
adventurous
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
slow-paced
One of the most brutal and systematic crime against humanity in modern history, and one I had literally never heard about before, which is weird for a lot of reasons. One reason is that roughly 10 million Africans of countless tribes under Belgian rule were killed over about 20 years. That doesn't even include how many were maimed or raped. The second reason is that Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad is specifically about this. It's not an allegory, which is what I was mostly led to believe in high school and college. It was his lived experience in the territory named the Congo by King Leopold. The third reason is that this was worldwide news for 20 years! It was the first modern international human rights campaign, and I--along with probably many others--had never even heard of it until stumbling across this book.
There are a lot of reasons for this erasure, and most of them are obvious, sadly. The most obvious is that discussing the horrors of Belgian colonialism would draw far too many parallels to British, French, American, Portuguese, Dutch, and German colonialism, but especially British and American, who were the two dominant world powers, with America rising powerfully and consistently through the World Wars which followed shortly after these events.
Economics and conservative politics all blend together to erase this brutal regime from history, and the Belgian state was especially tight-lipped about the horrors.
What's especially interesting about this moment in history is how King Leopold was able to manipulate public perception and the press for so long. He perfected tactics of PR and propaganda like an architect for what most world leaders--from US presidents to popes to autocrats the world over--of the 20th and 21st century would us as a model. The horror he inflicted on the Congo was made possible by the collaboration of industrialists in Europe and the US, by the pope, and by various heads of state who benefited from Leopold's rape of the Congo. Most sinister is how he played on humanitarian concerns of the time and used them as inroads to found his colony. He presented himself as a benevolent ruler against the slave trade, while he designed one of the most vicious slave industries. Like an illusionist, he convinced the world that he was a saint and a hero while he plundered a continent and decimated its people.
The resistance was led by four people. Two were Americans, descended from slaves. One was an Irishman--who became a radical fighting for Irish freedom--and the other was a British journalist. They faced down a King and all the world, really, and documented the atrocities that happened in the Congo. Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness played a part in this as well.
What's perhaps strangest is how the British, French, American, and German critics were able to see the obvious horror of Belgian imperialism, while being blind to their own nation's brutal handling of colonies and indigenous peoples. Even the most vocal critics of Leopold's regime in Africa remained proponents of British colonialism till their deaths, some decades later.
But, yes, this is an important and fascinating and terrifying book telling a story I imagine many are ignorant of. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable of this kind of thing, but I really had never even heard of what King Leopold did, even though I've read Heart of Darkness a few times.
Hochschild's writing is fascinating and thrilling, and we learn about the many charlatans, tyrants, and dissidents that make up this history.
Unfortunately, it's told primarily from the European and American perspective, rather than from the perspective of the people who experienced the brutality of the regime. Hochschild discusses why, and if he's to be believed, it has more to do with the near complete erasure of those voices than it does with him ignoring them. He cites this as a weakness to his own book early on in the book. Since, at this point, I don't know how true this is, I'm decided to trust the author, which may be a foolish thing to do. In any case, I'll likely be reading more on this topic in the months ahead.
But, if nothing else, this is a great place to start.
There are a lot of reasons for this erasure, and most of them are obvious, sadly. The most obvious is that discussing the horrors of Belgian colonialism would draw far too many parallels to British, French, American, Portuguese, Dutch, and German colonialism, but especially British and American, who were the two dominant world powers, with America rising powerfully and consistently through the World Wars which followed shortly after these events.
Economics and conservative politics all blend together to erase this brutal regime from history, and the Belgian state was especially tight-lipped about the horrors.
What's especially interesting about this moment in history is how King Leopold was able to manipulate public perception and the press for so long. He perfected tactics of PR and propaganda like an architect for what most world leaders--from US presidents to popes to autocrats the world over--of the 20th and 21st century would us as a model. The horror he inflicted on the Congo was made possible by the collaboration of industrialists in Europe and the US, by the pope, and by various heads of state who benefited from Leopold's rape of the Congo. Most sinister is how he played on humanitarian concerns of the time and used them as inroads to found his colony. He presented himself as a benevolent ruler against the slave trade, while he designed one of the most vicious slave industries. Like an illusionist, he convinced the world that he was a saint and a hero while he plundered a continent and decimated its people.
The resistance was led by four people. Two were Americans, descended from slaves. One was an Irishman--who became a radical fighting for Irish freedom--and the other was a British journalist. They faced down a King and all the world, really, and documented the atrocities that happened in the Congo. Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness played a part in this as well.
What's perhaps strangest is how the British, French, American, and German critics were able to see the obvious horror of Belgian imperialism, while being blind to their own nation's brutal handling of colonies and indigenous peoples. Even the most vocal critics of Leopold's regime in Africa remained proponents of British colonialism till their deaths, some decades later.
But, yes, this is an important and fascinating and terrifying book telling a story I imagine many are ignorant of. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable of this kind of thing, but I really had never even heard of what King Leopold did, even though I've read Heart of Darkness a few times.
Hochschild's writing is fascinating and thrilling, and we learn about the many charlatans, tyrants, and dissidents that make up this history.
Unfortunately, it's told primarily from the European and American perspective, rather than from the perspective of the people who experienced the brutality of the regime. Hochschild discusses why, and if he's to be believed, it has more to do with the near complete erasure of those voices than it does with him ignoring them. He cites this as a weakness to his own book early on in the book. Since, at this point, I don't know how true this is, I'm decided to trust the author, which may be a foolish thing to do. In any case, I'll likely be reading more on this topic in the months ahead.
But, if nothing else, this is a great place to start.
challenging
dark
informative
slow-paced
Very informative but not a feel-good read and as such was a long time to get through. Nothing to do with the author and the work, long in the tooth at some points, but certainly worth the effort
dark
emotional
reflective
medium-paced