Why Ghadaffi was Really Killed/Why Africa is Poor (Egyptians, 80s, colonies)

[The Unbreakable]

The cutting off of limbs that you are trying to emphasize in those pictures is actually a product of Western savagery, which was first instituted by king Leopold of Belgium during his genocide which killed over 10,000 million Congolese (the worst genocide of the 20th century):

Only 90 years ago, the agents of King Leopold II of Belgium massacred 10 million Africans in the Congo. Cutting off hands as we see in Sierra Leone today, was very much part of Leopold's repertoire. Today, Leopold's "rubber terror" has all been swept under the carpet. Adam Hochschild calls it "the great forgetting" in his brilliant new book, King Leopold's Ghost, recently published by Macmillan. This is a story of greed, exploitation and brutality that Africa and the world must not forget.

link

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by claudhopper

Next target Mali. We like to work both sides of the fence, we hire, train, fund the terrorists to go in and cause trouble, then we come in to fight terrorism, along with our NATO allies. The ignorant public buy into this game as it's played over and over again.
Mali is very rich in resources and a very beautiful country. I hope we don't blow it up like we did Libya.

The War in Mali and AFRICOM

Are you seriously quoting Michel Chossudovsky? You know, cause getting your information from a website ranting about the "New World Order" and dabbling in conspiracy theories will definitely make all of us take what you have to say seriously...

Originally Posted by claudhopper

That's ridiculous. They are kept poor by outside interests that benefit from keeping them dependent.

Yes and no. The outside interests require African partners in order to operate. This is no different than the slave trade if we want to be honest. The African power brokers are bought off by outside interests and they then sell out their own people in order to enrich themselves. There is plenty of blame to go around, but Africa's issues are not all externally imposed. Much of the lack of progress simply has to do with internecine fighting between various groups punctuated with the occasional brutal dictator. Now much of this is hangover from the colonial era, but it is still an African issue. This aspect of Africa is changing, as the information posted by Unbreakable shows. As Africa moves out of its conflict cycle (illustrated by the number of coup graphic) it will be able to begin harnessing its wealth for development and investing in itself.

Originally Posted by claudhopper

I expected people in the History section to have some clue what is going on, but I was mistaken.

Says the guy quoting conspiracy theory websites...

Originally Posted by The Unbreakable

The cutting off of limbs that you are trying to emphasize in those pictures is actually a product of Western savagery, which was first instituted by king Leopold of Belgium during his genocide which killed over 10,000 million Congolese (the worst genocide of the 20th century):

You are correct, limb disfigurement was the punishment instituted by Leopold for failing to meet the rubber quota's. There is no accurate number for the amount of people who died in the Congo Free State under Leopold II. Estimates range from 2 million to 15 million. The generally accepted number is the one the Belgian commission itself came up with and that is 10 million or roughly half of the population of the Congo Free State. In total numbers, it ranks as the third worst in the 20th century, but when accounted for the percentage of the population impacted, it easily becomes the worst. It is important to note though that while Leopold was the King of Belgium, Belgium did not control the Congo Free State. The Congo Free State was owned and run as an independent entity by Leopold. The Belgian government, responding to outcries over the brutality, took over control and made radical improvements to how the colony was run.

With that said, amputation and disfigurement for a variety of reasons dates back to antiquity, so it is hard to say that Leopold "introduced" the practice to anyone. I will say though, that many of the cases of amputation and disfigurement in modern Africa, especially among children, is more often than not caused by disease.

[The Unbreakable]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

In total numbers, it ranks as the third worst in the 20th century,

After the Mao genocide (I did not take into account earlier) it was the worst numerically. The Jewish genocide at the hands of the Nazis is placed at around 6 million.

The Congo Free State was owned and run as an independent entity by Leopold. The Belgian government, responding to outcries over the brutality, took over control and made radical improvements to how the colony was run.

Actually:

The domainal system destroyed the traditional economy of the Congo basin and enforced a labor tax on Leopold’s Congolese subjects requiring local chiefs to supply men to collect rubber and other resources.[3] It essentially obliged natives to supply these products without payment.

Genocide scholar Adam Jones comments, “The result was one of the most brutal and all-encompassing corvée institutions the world has known . . . Male rubber tappers and porters were mercilessly exploited and driven to death.”[6] Leopold's agents held the wives and children of these men hostage until they returned with their rubber quota.[5] Those who refused or failed to supply enough rubber often had their villages burned down, children murdered, and their hands cut off.[1,3]

Yale.edu

With that said, amputation and disfigurement for a variety of reasons dates back to antiquity, so it is hard to say that Leopold "introduced" the practice to anyone.

As I stated and as my source proves, the tortuous amputating of limbs was a result of King Leopold's blood thirsty policies.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by The Unbreakable

After the Mao genocide (I did not take into account earlier) it was the worst numerically. The Jewish genocide at the hands of the Nazis is placed at around 6 million.

If you insist on counting the component groups of the Holocaust then you are correct, it places second.

Actually:

I'm not sure what your response has to do with my statement that the country of Belgium was not involved in the atrocities and the Congo Free State was a separate entity owned and controlled by Leopold. It was only after an international outcry over the genocide being committed by Leopold that the Belgian government intervened, took control and the situation was radically improved. There is sometimes an attempt to associate Belgium the country with what happened in the Congo and this is not the case, though Belgium did profit greatly off of the king's lagresse via building projects he financed with the money he made in the Congo. The crimes and blood are on the hands of Leopold.

As I stated and as my source proves, the tortuous amputating of limbs was a result of King Leopold's blood thirsty policies.

I agreed with you that such a practice was used by Leopold. What I disagreed with was the implication that he "introduced it" to Africa. You know, given that amputation/disfigurement as a form of punishment has been around for millenia.

[The Unbreakable]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I'm not sure what your response has to do with my statement that the country of Belgium was not involved in the atrocities and the Congo Free State

If you would have read the source given then you would have seen:

By this time, Leopold had also established the Force Publique (FP) to campaign against the Arab slave trade in the Upper Congo, protect his economic interests, and suppress uprisings within the CFS, which were common. The FP's officer corps comprised only whites—Belgian regular soldiers and mercenaries from other countries.

You are seriously ****ing arguing that Belgians had no hand in a genocide orchestrated by Belgium.

There is sometimes an attempt to associate Belgium the country with what happened in the Congo and this is not the case, though Belgium did profit greatly off of the king's lagresse via building projects he financed with the money he made in the Congo.

European descendants really having a hard time owning up to satanic treatment of non Europeans and the legacy of misery on those people that it produced:

Genocide scholar Adam Jones comments, “The result was one of the most brutal and all-encompassing corvée institutions the world has known . . . Male rubber tappers and porters were mercilessly exploited and driven to death.”

or

From 1885 to 1908, it is estimated that the Congolese native population decreased by about ten million people.[2] Historian Adam Hochshild identifies a number of causes for this loss under Leopold’s reign—murder, starvation, exhaustion and exposure, disease, and plummeting birth rates. Congolese historian Ndaywel e Nziem estimates the death toll at thirteen million.[7] Leopold capitalized on the vast wealth extracted in ivory and rubber during his twenty-three year reign of terror in the CFS. He spent some of this wealth by constructing grand palaces and monuments including the Royal Museum for Central Africa in Tervuren. Ironically, Leopold never visited the kingdom in which he committed such atrocities, to witness the tragedy of his greed. Russell Schimmer, GSP, Yale University

"reign of terror" on the Congo is the legacy that the is European colonial power had on what is now one of the most war torn places on Earth. The Belgiums and the other Western powers were and still are a PLAGUE to the African continent.

You know, given that amputation/disfigurement as a form of punishment has been around for millenia.

No the Hell it wasn't! It was another sick form of punishment brought onto Africans by Europeans colonial powers.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by The Unbreakable

If you would have read the source given then you would have seen:

You are seriously ****ing arguing that Belgians had no hand in a genocide orchestrated by Belgium.

European descendants really having a hard time owning up to satanic treatment of non Europeans and the legacy of misery on those people that it produced:

or

"reign of terror" on the Congo is the legacy that the is European colonial power had on what is now one of the most war torn places on Earth. The Belgiums and the other Western powers were and still are a PLAGUE to the African continent.

Yes, I am seriously ****ing arguing that Belgium the country had no role in the running of the Congo Free State. The Congo Free State was an indpendent dominion and PERSONAL PROPERTY of Leopold II. The "state" was basically a commercial enterprise akin to the "East India Company". Leopold II had absolute authority and control over the Congo Free State. What I find most amusing by your insistince on arguing this point is that it is one frequently mentioned in the link that you are pulling your quotes from...

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

In 1885, Leopold’s efforts to establish Belgian influence in the Congo Basin were awarded with the État Indépendant du Congo (CFS, Congo Free State). 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]

You already mentioned the Force Publique, but this was an independent army recruited by Leopold to enforce his will in the free state. Of course the officer corps was all white and composed of Belgians as well as mercenaries from other countries. The model Leopold was following was the "East India Company" model. The Force Publique was not controlled by the Belgian government anymore than Britain controlled the independent military forces the EIC used to operate in India.

The actions of the FP led to international outrage and an investigation into the brutality by the British...

Increasing public outcry over the atrocities in the CFS moved the British government to launch an official investigation. The diplomat, Sir Roger Casement, was sent to the CFS as British Consul. Reporting to the Foreign Office in 1900, Casement wrote, “The root of the evil lies in the fact that the government of the Congo is above all a commercial trust, that everything else is orientated towards commercial gain . . .”[3] The establishment of the Congo Reform Association (CRA) in Great Britain was a direct result of Casement’s 1904 Congo Report. The CRA, whose members included Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and inspired Mark Twain among others, provided a foundation for one of the 20th century’s first human rights movements.

That led to Belgium the country taking over control of the Congo...

Yielding to international pressure, in 1908 the Belgian parliament annexed the CFS as the Belgian Congo, effectively removing Leopold from power. Just prior to releasing sovereignty over the CFS, Leopold destroyed all evidence of his activities in the CFS, including the archives of its Departments of Finance and the Interior.[3]

Do you still want to argue that Belgium, the country, is the entity that committed genocide in the Congo; or is it actually Leopold and his henchmen who did it in pursuit of maximizing their profits and generating personal wealth? The Congo was not a colony of Belgium until 1908 and while Belgium left scores of people enslaved and practiced "regular" colonial oppression, the genocide took place from 1885 to 1908 when the Congo was the personal dominion of Leopold II.

No the Hell it wasn't! It was another sick form of punishment brought onto Africans by Europeans colonial powers.

Are you going to seriously argue that humans haven't been amputating/disfiguring each other as a form of punishment/revenge for millenia? The practice is firmly described as having occurred in ancient Egypt, was contained in the Hammurabic Code, was a judicial punishment in Rome and was widely practiced by Arab slave traders and the various Islamic kingdoms in both the Middle East and Africa.

Amputation of the nose throughout history

Mutilation of protruding parts of the body (lips, tongue, breast, hands, genitals, nose, ears) was performed as judicial punishment, at different times and in various places. Proof can be gained from many ancient sources: from the Hammurabi code to the Egyptian papyri in the dynastic period, from the writings of Hindu vedic medicine described by Susruta and Charaka to the descriptions of the habits of the populations of Pre-Colombian America.

Amputation of the nasal pyramid, in some ancient civilisations, was considered legal punishment for certain misdeeds. In Egypt, at the time of the Pharaoh Ramses III (XX dynasty, 1192-1166 BC), a famous trial was held involving those responsible for the so-called “great harem conspiracy” some of whom were condemned to mutilation of the nose and ears, including two of the judges, responsible for having succumbed to the seduction of some of the women involved in the plot. Indeed, more than one century earlier, General Horemheb, who had become Pharaoh during the XVIII dynasty, had made a decree which punished, with deportation and amputation of the nose, magistrates who had taken advantage of their role.

Do you still want to pretend that amputation as punishment was some sort of "invention" of white people? I'm not arguing that it didn't happen; Leopold was one brutal, sick, twisted, SOB, but he didn't "invent" amputation as a form of punishment and neither did colonial Europeans. I think humanity in general can claim credit for the idea...

[The Unbreakable]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Yes, I am seriously ****ing arguing that Belgium the country had no role in the running of the Congo Free State.

So if I'm interpreting your words correctly, you are separating the country of Belgium from it's central state (government). If so, let me say that what you're saying is very dumb...as it appears to be a desperate attempt to wash the Congolese blood stains off of Belgium's hands.

The Congo Free State was an indpendent dominion and PERSONAL PROPERTY of Leopold II. The "state" was basically a commercial enterprise akin to the "East India Company". Leopold II had absolute authority and control over the Congo Free State. What I find most amusing by your insistince on arguing this point is that it is one frequently mentioned in the link that you are pulling your quotes from...

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

Oooh ok gotcha! So Leopold and the evil "private" Belgium army that set up rubber tree concentration camps throughout the Congo are the one's responsible, rather than the state of Belgium itself. Nazi Germany as a country generally had no anti-Semitic sentiments (sarcasm) and is not responsible for the genocide of the European Jews, instead we should just blame Hitler and his million of German soldiers:



Seriously what the **** kinda difference does that make...BELGIANS DID IT. #pointblank

You already mentioned the Force Publique, but this was an independent army recruited by Leopold to enforce his will in the free state. Of course the officer corps was all white and composed of Belgians as well as mercenaries from other countries.

Yes I read your ****ed logic loud and clear. Privately employed Belgium soldiers of KING Leopold that set up concentration camps (killing 13 million) throughout the Congo and who would regularly amputate the limbs of a man's wife and child as punishment for failing to meet their rubber quotas is in no way a stain on the Belgium consciousness, because those Belgians who did it were not employed by the state. Gotcha.

That led to Belgium the country taking over control of the Congo...

The same Belgium that raped the Congo of it's wealth, dethroned and executed (with the assistance of the U.S.) the only promising democratically elected leader out of the Congo upon it's independence out of SPITE, and subsequently has lead to endless ethnic conflict.

Do you still want to argue that Belgium, the country, is the entity that committed genocide in the Congo

No more than I want to argue that multiculturalism was an idea that spread our of Nazi Germany.

The Congo was not a colony of Belgium until 1908 and while Belgium left scores of people enslaved and practiced "regular" colonial oppression, the genocide took place from 1885 to 1908 when the Congo was the personal dominion of Leopold II.

Yeah exactly the European plague on Africans.

Are you going to seriously argue that humans haven't been amputating/disfiguring each other as a form of punishment/revenge for millenia?

I said AFRICANS did not do that **** to one another until it was instituted UPON THEM by the Belgians. Funny you use the word "millenia" and then state that Islamic kingdoms in Africa have been doing that ****....ISLAM CAME INTO AFRICA DURING 600. A.D.

Do you still want to pretend that amputation as punishment was some sort of "invention" of white people?

As far as Africa is concerned IT IS. Aside from some isolated instances in the Sudan (after Islam of course) that **** was non existance in other parts of black Africa.

but he didn't "invent" amputation as a form of punishment and neither did colonial Europeans. I think humanity in general can claim credit for the idea...

As far as the Congolese are the concerned HE DID!

[claudhopper]

Excuse me fella's but what does Gaddafi have to do with Belgiuns and amputees?

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by The Unbreakable

So if I'm interpreting your words correctly, you are separating the country of Belgium from it's central state (government). If so, let me say that what you're saying is very dumb...as it appears to be a desperate attempt to wash the Congolese blood stains off of Belgium's hands.

No, what's dumb is not realizing that the King of Belgium reigns, but does not rule over Belgium. The King of Belgium is and always has been nothing more than a figurehead of the constitutional monarchy. The government of Belgium and the King are not one in the same and in the case of the Congo Free State, it was the personal property of the king and the government of Belgium had no control over what went on there. #kingofbelgiumhasasmuchpoweraselvis

Oooh ok gotcha! So Leopold and the evil "private" Belgium army that set up rubber tree concentration camps throughout the Congo are the one's responsible, rather than the state of Belgium itself. Nazi Germany as a country generally had no anti-Semitic sentiments (sarcasm) and is not responsible for the genocide of the European Jews, instead we should just blame Hitler and his million of German soldiers:

The Congo Free State was a corporation, a corporation with its own private army (that was not entirely Belgian and of those who were Belgian, that was simply their national identity, not who they served) and reported to no one but the man who owned the corporation, Leopold II. The nation of Belgium had nothing to do with what happened in the Congo Free State. Why do you think all of the sources consistently state "Leopold II" and not "Belgium". There is a distinction and an important one. #everysourceagreeswiththisview

BTW, I love how you are trying to "Godwin" the thread... #whenindoubtsayhitler

Seriously what the **** kinda difference does that make...BELGIANS DID IT. #pointblank

Seriously it makes a lot of ****ing differnce. Am I to assume that you believe that all nations and people are collectively responsible for all crimes committed by all members of that nation? See, the problem here is that in the Nazi example, it was the national government and military of Germany. There is a collective responsibility. This was simply not the case with what happened in the Congo where the average Belgian and the Belgian government had no role in what happened there. #acceptthetruth

Yes I read your ****ed logic loud and clear. Privately employed Belgium soldiers of KING Leopold that set up concentration camps (killing 13 million) throughout the Congo and who would regularly amputate the limbs of a man's wife and child as punishment for failing to meet their rubber quotas is in no way a stain on the Belgium consciousness, because those Belgians who did it were not employed by the state. Gotcha.

13 million? I thought we had both agreed it was 10 million according to the source we both quoted. Man, if this keeps going pretty soon Leopold will have killed every man, woman and child in Africa... #inflation

As for the rest we are just repeating the same arguments. The Congo Free State was NOT "Belgian" in the national sense of the word, it was the private enterprise of the guy who happened to be King of Belgium. If we want to get real technical, the Congo Free State was owned by the Abir Congo Company, originally known as the Anglo-Belgian India Rubber Company... #evilcorporationsarenothingnew

Abir Congo Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The same Belgium that raped the Congo of it's wealth, dethroned and executed (with the assistance of the U.S.) the only promising democratically elected leader out of the Congo upon it's independence out of SPITE, and subsequently has lead to endless ethnic conflict.

What do you think I meant when I said "regular colonial oppression".

What the Belgian government DIDN'T DO when it took control is continue the genocidal rampage of Leopold and the Abir milita (Force Publique). #exploitationyesgenocideno

No more than I want to argue that multiculturalism was an idea that spread our of Nazi Germany.

Yet here we are arguing about it. #giveitupalready #admityourewrong

I said AFRICANS did not do that **** to one another until it was instituted UPON THEM by the Belgians. Funny you use the word "millenia" and then state that Islamic kingdoms in Africa have been doing that ****....ISLAM CAME INTO AFRICA DURING 600. A.D.

As far as Africa is concerned IT IS. Aside from some isolated instances in the Sudan (after Islam of course) that **** was non existance in other parts of black Africa.

As far as the Congolese are the concerned HE DID!

Man, are you really going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that Africans never mutilated each other throughout the entire history of Africa? Yes, the people of Africa and especially the Congo lived in a utopian, enlightened world without warfare and crime until the evil Europeans came along and started lopping off peoples limbs... #getreal

First exhibit, the source I linked to mentioned mutiliation as punishment as a practice known to have been done in dynastic Egypt. The exact example was the court of Ramses III ~1170 BC and the "great harem conspiracy". Are the Egyptians not African? I thought they were. You would even argue that all of African culture is rooted and united through dynastic Egypt. So, I have presented evidence that mutilation/amputation as punishment was practiced in ancient Egpyt, hence it was not something "new" introduced to Africa by Europeans now was it? #pwned

As for my use of the word "millenia" that would be referencing the aforementioned dynastic Egpytians. They were practicing it in Africa at least 3,000 years before the Belgians, that would be three millenia. I also cited the example of Hammurabi's Code which is quite explicit in using mutiliation as a punishment. That dates to 1772 BC, or around 3,650 years before the Belgians in the Congo. That would be 3.65 millenia. I mentioned the Arab Slave Trade because that would have been more recent and the impact of this trade and the Islamic kingdoms of Africa still exists and everyone knows about Islamic law and mutiliation/amputation. They showed up around 600 AD, which is 1,285 years before the Belgians. That would be ~1.3 millenia. Still want to question my use of the word? #grammarpolicefail

On the topic of who introduced it to the Congolese, well the Arab slave traders were active in the Congo Basin since at least the 9th century. Then we have the Kingdom of Kongo that had slave markets long before Europeans arrived and happily sold slaves to the Arabs and Portugese. To think that the people of the Congo were "innocent" to such things as mutilation/amputation as punishment until Leopold II arrived is simply foolish. #africanswerentinnocentchildrenuntilthewhitemanarr ived

Originally Posted by claudhopper

Excuse me fella's but what does Gaddafi have to do with Belgiuns and amputees?

Not sure, other than evil white people doing bad things.

[The Unbreakable]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

No, what's dumb is not realizing that the King of Belgium reigns, but does not rule over Belgium.

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****

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

The nation of Belgium had nothing to do with what happened in the Congo Free State. Why do you think all of the sources consistently state "Leopold II" and not "Belgium". There is a distinction and an important one.

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

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Seriously it makes a lot of ****ing differnce. Am I to assume that you believe that all nations and people are collectively responsible for all crimes committed by all members of that nation?

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

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

13 million? I thought we had both agreed it was 10 million according to the source we both quoted. Man, if this keeps going pretty soon Leopold will have killed every man, woman and child in Africa...

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

Historian Adam Hochshild identifies a number of causes for this loss under Leopold’s reign—murder, starvation, exhaustion and exposure, disease, and plummeting birth rates. Congolese historian Ndaywel e Nziem estimates the death toll at thirteen million.

Yale.edu #payatttention #FYI

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Free State was NOT "Belgian" in the national sense of the word, it was the private enterprise of the guy who happened to be King of Belgium.

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

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Man, are you really going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that Africans never mutilated each other throughout the entire history of Africa?

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.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Yes, the people of Africa and especially the Congo lived in a utopian, enlightened world without warfare and crime until the evil Europeans came along and started lopping off peoples limbsl

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.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

First exhibit, the source I linked to mentioned mutiliation as punishment as a practice known to have been done in dynastic Egypt. The exact example was the court of Ramses III ~1170 BC and the "great harem conspiracy". Are the Egyptians not African? I thought they were. You would even argue that all of African culture is rooted and united through dynastic Egypt. So, I have presented evidence that mutilation/amputation as punishment was practiced in ancient Egpyt, hence it was not something "new" introduced to Africa by Europeans now was it?

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

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

As for my use of the word "millenia" that would be referencing the aforementioned dynastic Egpytians. They were practicing it in Africa at least 3,000 years before the Belgians

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:

The Penal Code in Egypt, at the time of the Pharaohs, foresaw this type of mutilation, also for adultery, a punishment that was maybe rarely carried out judging from the fact that evidence of these lesions has rarely been found in the mummies.

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.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I mentioned the Arab Slave Trade because that would have been more recent

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

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

]On the topic of who introduced it to the Congolese, well the Arab slave traders were active in the Congo Basin since at least the 9th century.

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

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Then we have the Kingdom of Kongo that had slave markets long before Europeans arrived and happily sold slaves to the Arabs and Portugese.

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

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

To think that the people of the Congo were "innocent" to such things as mutilation/amputation as punishment until Leopold II arrived is simply foolish.

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