King Leopold II’s Conquest of the Congo: A Historiographical Essay

Noah Jacob
GH315: Historiography
May 6, 2018

1|Page
 Events of the past always happen in the most unexpected ways imaginable to humans.

Humans for as long as they have been around have searched high and low for answers to the

questions about themselves, many which never seem to yield their truth. In the past, many

despicable things have occurred at the hands of people with power. Genocide, war, destruction,

oppression, greed, all things that occurred by human hands. In their lasting greed and hunger for

power, many have done things to a fellow man that are unthinkably cruel and inhumane, to the

point in which their actions left permanent marks on the psyche of those who are left to endure

its tragedies. Though a highly touched topic within the history of the world, there are those who

look to answer the questions about the cruelty that had been done to Africa and its people. A

lesser spoken event of these, the Belgian conquest of the Congo during the late 1800s shows

itself as a prime example of the questions that drive researchers to investigate why King Leopold

II would cause such events and how they managed to continue unchecked for so long.

This topic is not a heavily examined area of the past and is often left out of the general

history of the world and lends itself to be another tragic story of the “raping” of Africa and its

people during Europe’s “Scramble for Africa”. One of the first authors to truly delve into the

topic of the Belgian Conquest of the Congo was the author Neal Ascherson, a Scottish born

author, and journalist who wrote several books on historical events and current issues during the

1960s-1990s. He wrote his book The King Incorporated: Leopold II in the Age of Trusts, which

was a book that came out during the 1960s two years after the independence of the Congo from

Belgium. He used various monographs on Leopold II’s Africa as well as compilations of other

research documents on the Congolese people under Belgian Colonialism.

In his book, he takes a view of King Leopold II that is different from many authors

coming into the latter half of the 20th Century and well into the 21st Century as well. Ascherson

2|Page
focuses on the view of King Leopold II, not as a leader that brought tragedy to the free-state of

the Congo but rather as a national leader. Someone who wanted to expand the power of Belgium

that was severely weakened by the relationship between the Parliament and the Crown.

Ascherson details the reasonings for the conquest of the Congo as a step in the master plan of

King Leopold II.

He examines that this was one step to make his dynasty a national leader and to do that he

needed to accumulate wealth and territory, which plays into the European movement of

imperialism. Ascherson puts his actions in the Congo as part of his wider schemes to increase his

personal power through expansion of Africa. This labels Leopold as a brilliant leader who

pushed for territory and the betterment of his country, which correlates with thoughts of

European superiority and support western influence on the world rather than focusing on the

negative outcomes of his colonial exploitation.

Another of the first authors who try to bring light on this subject and helped to set the

Belgian Imperialistic era as a horrid event that should not be lost to history was that of Adam

Hochschild. Author Adam Hochschild tried to answer some of the persistent questions brought

about by this event. Hochschild published a book on the subject in the late 1990s called King

Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa. This became one of

the most well-known books about the devastation brought about the Congo during the colonial

reign of the Belgian Monarchy.

Through Hochschild’s writings, he incorporates various primary sources such as letters,

diary entries, and interviews of both the Congolese people and the Europeans to paint a vivid

picture of the horrors faced by Congolese. His other major impressions seem to fall with blame

on a larger group who shoulders the blame for the tragedies, King Leopold II, a man that

3|Page
Hochschild often pictures as a power-hungry tyrant whose pockets were deeper than his

empathy. Hochschild puts a tremendous amount of work to place the causation of the event on

his ambition to grow his empire with or without the approval of his fellow countrymen.

Within the first chapter of the book, Hochschild puts into words King Leopold II’s drive

for a colony. “What mattered was the size of the profit. His drive for colonies, however, was the

shaped by a desire not only for money but for power.” (39). Hochschild uses his explanation of

why these events went on for so long as part of the wider play for power and money. He argues

that those who were going into the Congo did not actively speak of the events that happened

during that time to keep attention away from the cruelties that were taking place as well if not,

more importantly, to keep their pocketbooks full. Thus, would conclude that Leopold’s

exploitation of the Congo was a venture of finical gain and the hunger for power to be

considered a major player in the global power struggle.

Hochschild was heavily influenced by an earlier book that was printed in the late 1800s

by Joseph Conrad entitled The Heart of Darkness as the cruelties within the book impacted

Hochscild’s writings. The story was of imperialism in Africa through a man who saw many

terrible things as a steamboat captain on the Congo River. This book led Hochschild to delve into

the seemingly forgotten history of the Belgian occupation of the Congo.

In a similar sense to Hochschild, the editors of the History Channel did an article on their

website named “King Leopold II of Belgium Takes the Congo” as part of their daily history

segment. Within the short article, it tells of King Leopold II as a man who wanted to better his

country through wealth and prestige yet enacted it in the most brutal and barbaric way. The

4|Page
article tells of the thirst for power blinded Leopold in his actions and caused him to enact years

of torture, genocide, and slavery to the people within the colony. The article speaks of the events

as “one of the worst man-made humanitarian disasters of the turn of the 20th century.”

equating it to a genocidal level event. (1) This type of thinking toward the Belgian occupation

of the Congo would continue in many different forms over the next several years and be

branched upon as well.

Authors after the writing of King Leopold’s Ghost would expand on the ideas of

Hochschild through various articles and books. One such author is that of Richard F. Hamilton

who wrote an article after reading about Hochschild’s book and explored its significance on the

world stage. In Hamilton’s article “A Neglected Holocaust”, he talks about the lack of emphasis

that is put on this event in history.

Writing this article two years after the publishing of Hochschild’s book he conveys that

the exploitation of the Congolese people is a genocide that is on par with that of Holocaust by the

Nazis during the Second World War yet is conveyed as much less significant. Using a few

reports written by the Belgian Government after the securing of the Congo from King Leopold II

explaining that there was a misuse of the Congo under his authority, Hamilton created a

reasoning behind the longevity of the atrocities. Hamilton states that “The 1966 account again

centers on the report of the Belgian commission of inquiry. In what appears to be a rewrite of the

earlier article, this one states that the commission expressed "admiration for the many signs of

progress [but] confirmed the existence of grave abuses there. " Nothing is said about murder,

nothing about extortion, nothing about the cut-off hands”. (2)

Hamilton’s theory on this is that of the manipulation of the Belgian Government and its

actions to cover the truth on the subject through the destruction of various documents and

5|Page
evidence as they were much more worried about appearance than ethics. His analysis puts much

more blame of the events on the parliament of Belgium for its ignorance and lack of involvement

in Leopold’s “free-state” that lead to the massacring of native people by the hundreds.

A trend seems to be set at this time during the early 2000s as the term holocaust is being

used in repetition toward this subject. This early 2000s era is marked with many people putting

those who commit genocide throughout the modern world in the same category as Adolf Hitler

or Joseph Stalin in their cruelness and many of them referring to them as “Another Hitler”. This

association of the events that happened in the Congo during the age of Imperialism became an

event that would become associated with other similar events in history as a Holocaust-type

event. One author that also interpreted this event as a genocide type of event was that of Robert

G. Weisbord and his focus on the influence of Christian influences on the interpretation of the

events.

Weisbord concludes throughout his article titled “The King, the Cardinal, and the Pope:

Leopold II’s genocide in the Congo and the Vatican” that the influence on the feeling of the

events of the Belgian Colonialization of the Congo has a lot to do with the pressing tensions

within the United States during the Late 1800s. With the Civil War not too far in distant memory

of most Americans, the acts that were coming out of the Congo fell on memories of slavery and

its influence on Christian morality. It was also at this time that the third great revival within the

United States coming in during the 1890s, especially with its affecting of Irish Catholics, play a

role in the view of the event as the pope himself became involved in the immorality in the

treatment of the Congolese people. This would become clearer as the Pope himself would begin

to make speeches that rallied against the atrocities that were rumored to be coming from the

Belgian Congo.

6|Page
 This parallels the events that happened during the Second World War with the Holocaust

where the Vatican put their support to handle the Jewish people affected by Nazi imprisonment.

It is from this connection which Weisbord puts his emphasis on the role of Christian morality

had on the event. He says that due to the crying support of those who allied with the Pope’s

request to stop Leopold’s occupation of the Congo is what helped to drive the United States to

put pressure on the Belgian Government to seize the Congo from King Leopold. Weisbord also

puts Leopold in the same light as that of “Another Hitler” in his treatment of the Congolese

people and his actions in the genocide that resulted. Using perspectives of intolerance and blatant

European superiority as reasonings for lack of empathy that King Leopold II felt for the

Congolese people as being like Hitler’s view of Jews within Nazi Germany.

One of the last authors to truly write on the subject before the end of the 2000s decade

was Osumaka Likaka and his book Naming Colonialism: History and Collective Memory in the

Congo. Within his book, Likaka examines the history of the region through the eyes of those

who had suffered under the Belgian Monarchy, the Congolese people themselves. Likaka

examines that people often read stories of history through the eyes of an observer rather than a

participant. He places his ideas of events through the connection with the names used to describe

those who conquered the Congo. Likaka uses many of the different words of the Congolese

language along with their meanings from various interviews of the decedents of those who

worked as rubber collectors for the Belgian Monarchy. Likaka also used secondary documents

done by those who study the languages of the Congo Basin and their meanings to the people who

lived there. Within this context, we begin to see a shift in the viewing of African History and

how today’s standards read it.

7|Page
 Likaka shifts to put the perspective of the story he is trying to tell with the voices of those

who were affected by the travesties and using the vernacular of the Congolese people. Likaka

explains that by putting the views of those who were under the oppression of the Congo gives a

perspective that sheds light on the mental weight of the event in history that is often overlooked

when viewing the genocidal events in Africa. It is from here this we also see this shift to a view

of the events in the belief of Congolese people.

Other works would not truly surface with the notable change on the Congo until the

beginning of the 2010s when we see a shift in ideas about the reasoning behind the events in the

Congo. Here one would see a shift in the standing on the topic of Belgian Colonialism as not just

the blame of one ruler but rather that of a global quest to be seen on the world stage and the

influence of capital as well as putting into light the view of the native people under Belgian rule.

An example book of this change is seen in Selling the Congo: A History of European Pro-

Empire Propaganda and the Making of Belgian Imperialism, published in 2011, works in a

different theory on the subject. The author, Matthew G. Stanard, plays on the belief that the

reasons for the events to take place came more from the general populous of Belgium. Stanard

argues that it was the people of Belgium who did not want to see the horrors that were taking

place and would look the other way as long as it did not interfere with the revenue coming in

from the Congo.

He argues that the Belgian people were extremely happy to have a bound of resources at

their disposal as well as to strengthen their own identity as a major player on the conquest of the

world by European powers. The Congo itself did not belong to the state but instead belonged to

the Monarch King Leopold II himself and thus the assets of the colony were for his reaping. This

placed the Congo entirely at the mercy of the Monarchy with parliament having little say in the

8|Page
matter of how it was to function, and with that free running King Leopold II would try to pillage

the Congo for all it had.

Though Leopold was getting copious amounts of profit from the colony much of that

money was coming back to the country of Belgium and making it very wealthy through the rich

array of materials of the Congo. This is where the author makes the argument of how these

events were widely ignored by the public, as for why Belgian people would interfere in a

business that was making the country lots of money even if it is only trickling to the lower

classes to a small extent. He accounts much of Leopold’s success to his mastery of propaganda

and his use of rhetoric to sway the population not only to go along with his plans but to also

enlist people to enter the Congo for him. Stanard enforces this claim as that the people rather

than being ashamed of the criminal acts that were taken place under the rule of Leopold they

held him in the honor of a hero who was the founder of the Belgian Colony.

This view came to fruition as many citizens of the country, including members of

parliament, thought Leopold was making a name for the Belgian people. They viewed him as a

national hero who was putting Belgium as a true world power by extending their reach around

the globe as other imperialistic nations were doing. These citizens only turned their eyes to the

cruelty in Africa only when the countries of the world began to investigate the rumors of the

cruelty being done to the native people of the Congo Basin by the men that Leopold sent.

This is the idea of these events transposing as a response to the global imperialistic power

scramble is continued by authors such as that of Maarten Couttenier. He did several papers in the

rise of museums founded by the Belgian Government that portrayed King Leopold II as a hero

within the Congo Basin that sprung up during the 1950s. Of his more well-known articles was

that of “Between Regionalization and Centralization: The Creation of the Musée Léopold II in

9|Page
Elisabethville” in which he delves into the thoughts of the time creating Leopold as a Belgian

hero and expansionist. He signifies that beliefs of King Leopold II have shifted to change his

persona as one of a National Hero to a tyrannical ruler whose greed killed thousands under his

rule. Couttenier attributes this change to the rising interest in African issues and a reignited spark

in Civil Rights debates in countries such as the United States and there investigate European

involvement in Africa. Couttenier never explicitly put a single blame on the travesties as any

underlining issues but did suggest views of a fading Monarchy in an Imperialistic Europe as a

partial cause of his actions.

Authors such as David Van Reybrouck with his coauthor Sam Garrett, as others in the

2010s, argued in his book Congo: The Epic History of a People that like authors such as Stanard

that it was not one person or nation that harbors the full blame for the tragedies. Reybrouck and

Garrett, though taking a large focus on the people of the Congo did make valid points on the

reasons that lead the events of the raping of the Congolese people and their land. He made the

point that it was the craving of natural resources within Africa that lead the Europeans such as

Britain and France to poach it of its people, ivory, diamonds, and rubber and that it was only

natural for another suiter to try and grab a piece of the wealth for themselves, it just so happen to

be Belgium.

Though Reybrouck argues that the cruelty done to the Congolese people may not have

been worse or the same if, in the hands of any other kingdom, he found it was inevitable that

other smaller powers would try to compete with Britain’s and France’s imperialistic influence

around the globe. Putting a heavy perspective on the views of the Congolese during this time

Reybrouck used several diary entries from interpreters and missionaries to get the story of the

pain felt by the Congolese people through their own words and emotions.

10 | P a g e
 Throughout the decades the thoughts of how to interpret the causes of King Leopold II’s

conquest of the Congo has shifted drastically. From early interpretations of a King who wish was

for the betterment of his fellow countrymen to one of a tyrannical leader whose only goal was to

increase his own power regardless of consequence. Later interpretations would yield his actions

as not to be blamed specifically due to his greed alone but rather a product of the worldview of

imperialistic societies and they're competing for resources and lands. Though shifts in opinion

and interpretation have changed it can still be said that the lives affected by this event will still

find its way to telling the story through those who research it.

11 | P a g e
 Selected Bibliography

Ascherson, Neal. The King Incorporated: Leopold II in the Age of Trusts. Doubleday, 1974.

Conrad, Joseph, Adam Hochschild, and Timothy S. Hayes. Heart of Darkness. Penguin Books, 2012.

Couttenier, Maarten. "Between Regionalization and Centralization: The Creation of the Musée Léopold

II in Elisabethville (Musée National De Lubumbashi), Belgian Congo (1931–1961)." History and

Anthropology 25, no. 1 (09, 2013): 72-101. doi:10.1080/02757206.2013.823056.

Hamilton, Richard F. "A Neglected Holocaust." Human Rights Review 1, no. 3 (04 2000): 119-23.

doi:10.1007/s12142-000-1026-7.

Hochschild, Adam. King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror and Heroism a Story of Greed,

Terror and Heroism in Colonial Africa. Pan, 2012.

"King Leopold II of Belgium Takes the Congo | History Channel on Foxtel." History Channel. June 09,

2017. https://www.historychannel.com.au/articles/king-leopold-ii-of-belgium-takes-the-congo/.

Likaka, Osumaka. Naming Colonialism: History and Collective Memory in the Congo, 1870-1960.

University of Wisconsin Press, 2009.

Reybrouck, David Van, and Sam Garrett. Congo: The Epic History of a People. Harper Collins, 2015.

Stanard, Matthew G. Selling the Congo: A History of European Pro-empire Propaganda and the

Making of Belgian Imperialism. University of Nebraska Press, 2015.

Weisbord, Robert G. "The King, the Cardinal and the Pope: Leopold II's Genocide in the Congo and

the Vatican." Journal of Genocide Research 5, no. 1 (03 2003): 35-45.

doi:10.1080/14623520305651.

12 | P a g e