Why Ghadaffi was Really Killed/Why Africa is Poor

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by The Unbreakable

Yeah Yeah! The nation of Belgium did not "officially" partake in the original genocide of the Congolese, but rather it was just the Belgian King and his private army made up of Belgians. The nation of Belgium was the "colonial" savior who put the Congolese people in a very good position to govern with the new borders of the Congo which now included other distinct groups of Africans. There were never any power struggles amongst the various ethnic groups throughout the Congo to control the newly emancipated nation which now engulfs their ancestral homelands. #Ismellbull****

Gotcha! It was the Belgian king and his private Belgian army, which is in no way a reflection of the Belgian "government". Though I believe that my premise was that the Western world is the cause of the denigration of Africa and this thread offers proof that Westerners to this day have a huge stake in seeing Africa continue to struggle (their pockets). #naturalresources #seenoevilhearnoevil

As a people Hell yea! If you know that your LEADERS (I think that a king would fall under that category) are committing heinous crimes against humanity and it takes you over 25 years to see that the **** is ended, then I say yeah. They're all ****ed up. #justsayin

Yeah the 13 million figure is what was given in the exert of that source. Wikipedia places the high estimate 15 million:

Yale.edu #payatttention #FYI

Again this fails to discern my point. Westerners introduced Africa to Hell. You trying to do this little lawyer "government" vs "monarch" bull****...I mean what are you proving ultimately? That a Western monarch who is referred to as the King of Belgians equipped with a privately funded Belgian army committed one of the worst acts of genocide on record, but that it's not a reflection of the Belgian people simply because it was not an official act of the Belgian "government" (who allowed this event to carry on for over a quarter century)...#thef*ck? #WesternEuropeanwayofthinking #weaseling #ownuptotourevils

Look I'm not here to entertain your ignorant perceptions about Africans. The cutting off limbs as punishment WAS NOT CREATED BY AFRICANS and you have no evidence to suggest that it was. This entire discussion came from the guy at the top of the page who insinuated that limb dismemberment was an African practice originally.I then so kindly pointed out that it was instituted on black Africans by the King of the Belgians during his reign of horror in the Congo and that is where it's history amongst blacks began.

Yep!

Kingdom of Kongo:

King of Kongo receiving Dutch Ambassadors

Looks like a pretty joyous place to me as recorded by the Europeans prior to their brutal invasion.

The ancient Egyptians were in fact black African in origin, but dealt extensively with non Africans and particularly Middle Easterners (common knowledge). There was cultural exchange on both ends. I will say that the closest cultures to ancient Egypt lay in the Great Lakes regions of Africa and parts of Western and Central Africa (their true descendants) and the fact that these black African cultures obviously don't didn't do that **** I'm more inclined to say that it was adopted. When one also entails the origins of ancient Egypt you obviously must look at the ancient Sahara, which engulfed various black African ethnic groups (primarily Nilotic and Niger-Congo speakers). After desertification these Africans who now have a great deal of cultural-ethnic intermingling moved East towards the Nile Valley, South towards Chad and South Sudan, and into Western Africa, where none of that **** limb dismemberment punishment **** was found. #getyamindrightplaya

Which is a practice that was carried on by which Africans? Do you even know if limb dismemberment was prevalent in ancient Egypt or was it just that one isolated instance? If it was just that one instance then that gives you no merit to characterize the civilization with that. In fact your own source even states:

Even in ancient Egypt considering the facts that have been pointed out, this was rare and was apparently not a long lived practice amongst black Africans.

Translation you knew that you would look stupid trying to argue that the dismemberment of limbs was one that has been carried on amongst black Africans for over 3,000 years, especially since your only other reference to this being carried out amongst black Africans ultimately comes from a Middle Eastern source. #you'renotslick

The practice of limb dismemberment in Islam is of course faith based and the Congolese are not and never have been Muslim. The Congolese were not occupied by Arabs. The Arabs knew better then to come that deep in the Congo with the ****ty guns that they had, so they paid other black Africans to sell captives from rival tribes to them. #keeptryingtho

Long before European arrived eh...aren't the Portuguese European? #Homer'sDoh

They are and you have presented not a shred of evidence proving otherwise. Nothing more then ignorant assumptions.

ROFL...f'ing...MAO...you just love to engage in reductionist and obfuscating arguments don't you? #homeydontplaydat

There are two arguments here that are rather simple, but you want to twist and twist and twist until you can weasel into a situation where you are right. #inferioritycomplex

Argument 1: Was the Congo Free State administered by Belgium, the nation or was it the sole property of King Leopold II and run as he saw fit and the Belgian government had zero influence over what Leopold did in the CFS? #keepinitsimplesootherscanfollow

Your postition: It doesn't matter, they were one in the same, brutal white Europeans committing genocide and exploiting Africans for their personal gain. Leopold was King of the Belgians afterall. #correctmeifimwrong

My position: It does actually matter. If the CFS was in anyway controlled by Belgium, the county, then the act could be laid at the feet of the nation of Belgium and its people. However, that was not the case. Leopold was nothing more than a figurehead king and the CFS was his own personal possession. #findalegitsourcethatsaysthatisnttrue

Congo Free State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Congo Free State (French: État indépendant du Congo) was a large area in Central Africa that was privately controlled by Leopold II, King of the Belgians.

Belgian Congo | Colonial Genocides | Genocide Studies Program | Yale University

By a resolution passed in the Belgian parliament, Leopold became Roi-Souverain of the newly formed CFS, over which he enjoyed nearly absolute control.[3] The CFS (today the Democratic Republic of the Congo), a country of over two million square kilometers, became Leopold’s personal property, the Domaine Privé.[5]

Leopold II of Belgium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leopold was the founder and sole owner of the Congo Free State, a private project undertaken on his own behalf.

After numerous unsuccessful schemes to acquire colonies in Africa and Asia, in 1876 Leopold organized a private holding company disguised as an international scientific and philanthropic association, which he called the International African Society, or the International Association for the Exploration and Civilization of the Congo. In 1878, under the auspices of the holding company, he hired the famous explorer Henry Stanley to explore and establish a colony in the Congo region.[SIZE=2][2][/SIZE] Much diplomatic maneuvering resulted in the Berlin Conference of 1884–1885 regarding African affairs, at which representatives of fourteen European countries and the United States recognized Leopold as sovereign of most of the area to which he and Stanley had laid claim. On 5 February 1885, the Congo Free State was established under Leopold II's personal rule, an area 76 times larger than Belgium, which Leopold was free to control through his private army, the Force Publique.

The Butcher of Congo: King Leopold II of Belgium. - Andre C James - Digital Journal

In a testament to the hideous brutality of the European colonial era and imperialism in its finest form, during the 1880s, when Europe was busy dividing up the continent of Africa like a vast chocolate cake, King Leopold II of Belgium laid personal claim to the largely uncharted Congo Free State.

BBC NEWS | Africa | King Leopold's legacy of DR Congo violence

While the Great Powers competed for territory elsewhere, the king of one of Europe's smallest countries carved his own private colony out of 100km2 of Central African rainforest.

When You Kill Ten Million Africans You Aren

He “owned” the Congo during his reign as the constitutional monarch of Belgium. After several failed colonial attempts in Asia and Africa, he settled on the Congo. He “bought” it and enslaved its people, turning the entire country into his own personal slave plantation. He disguised his business transactions as “philanthropic” and “scientific” efforts under the banner of the International African Society. He used their enslaved labor to extract Congolese resources and services. His reign was enforced through work camps, body mutilations, executions, torture, and his private army.

Do I need to provide anymore sources showing that the Congo Free State was the PERSONAL POSSESSION of Leopold II? #didntthinkso

Argument 2: Did European colonialists invent amputation as a form of punishment? #areweevenseriouslyarguingthis?

Your position: Yes they did...well, maybe at least in terms of the Congo. #notreallysureyoureallovertheplace

My position: This entire argument is ridiculous. No doubt Leopolds forces instituted a brutal practice in the CFS during his rule. Also, no doubt that the modern practice of this in Africa has roots in both the Islamic influence in Africa and Leopold's CFS. However, to argue that it was somehow introduced to the entire continent (as you did) or to imply that it was something the Europeans came up with (as you did) is simply laughable. #whitepeoplearenttherootofallevil

We can choose to continue the debate or not. We can keep poking fun at each other with hashtags or not. I'm sure you can dig up plenty of gifs of black people being frustrated and disgusted as well as pictures depicting the awesomeness of pre-European colonialism African societies...or not.

Our first argument is ultimately perspective based. I see a difference, you don't. You won't find a source that will actually say that my position is wrong. However, I do understand your argument, it's just not one I share in that I believe that what happened was the result of the brutality of Leopold, not the Belgian people as a whole. You will never change my mind, I will never change yours. Unlike the Egyptian arguments we've had, this is actually a part of history I am well versed in.

The second argument is simply ridiculous. I didn't deny that Leopolds forces did what they did in the Congo. I merely stated that they did not "invent" the practice or introduce it for the first time to the continent of Africa as you rather vociferously stated. I am simply confused as to how you can even attempt to argue this one with any degree of logic or reality.

#stoptakingeverydiscussionlikeitsapersonalassaulto nyouandyourpeople #itsnot

[PJSaturn]

This thread will remain closed, since it has strayed so far from its original topic.