User:KamiLazer: Difference between revisions

Help

Did you just try to copy and paste the article by the ''same guy'' i mentioned his research wasn't valid and widely critcized by other historians as "evidence" to your proof? Like i didn't even paint you as a white supremacist and yet you're accusing me of doing so because you're so fragile and think any criticism to you believing in BS written by a pro-colonialism guy with a agenda is true when even the fellow colonialists of the time were horrified by what Leopold was doing.

Also, i love how you say i'm not presenting any evidence like i need to state every historian who believes the Holocaust is real, like, you entirely ignored every single historian who has noted Leopold's atrocities in there, including the historical consensus in order to support a guy whose work is not only motivated by agenda but also fails to cite any sources when making claims like blaming ''all'' of the violence by Free State Troops on local recruited natives who without supervision engaged in brutality or saying that it was actually in the areas wgere the lack of of control by the Free State was more presente that more deaths/rapes/slavery happened, while at the same time ignoring the freaking Casament Report that confirmed every single thing we know today about the colony at a time human rights didn't even exist.

Oh yeah, and two things i love: Him talking about the whole "Leopold helped fight off arab slaves" when the Congo Free State initially ''colaborated'' with the arabs until hostilities grew between the two and he tried using this as part of his humanitarian campaign propaganda, and you using Leopold's letter as "proof" (do you also use Albert Speer's memories as a accurate report on the Reich?) of his benevolence when he has another letter where he scoffs at officials chopping hands because that's the only things he needa from the natives.

Lastly, the fact that Gilley things fucking heart of darkness is pro-colonialism because it has stereotypical depictions of african natives (On a 19th century book? Shocker!) showcases he never fucking read the damn thing because this is how the "white man's burden" and the colonialists are described, word-for-word:

"To tear treasure out of the bowels of the land was their desire, with no more moral purpose at the back of it than there is in burglars breaking into a safe."

=== response ===

you need evidence something you didnt demonstrate and continue not to do, so congrats the page will be unlocked and if you continue you will be locked too. but since you gave the casement report i will rape that

A number of people have used the image of King Leopold II of the Belgians and his rule of the Congo Free State to attack, not only colonialism/imperialism and the King himself but monarchy in general and the Belgian monarchy as a whole. Given that, it is worth looking at who were, in his own time, the most outspoken enemies of King Leopold II and what sort of men they were. Two were most prominent and effective in their criticism. One was the British Consul to the Congo Free State Roger Casement who wrote a report damning the colony which had far-reaching consequences. So, who was Roger Casement? Many of you, particularly those hailing from the British Isles, may have heard of him.

Roger Casement was an Irishman, born in Dublin to a Protestant military officer (his Catholic mother had him re-baptized in the Roman rite when he was 3) in 1864; the same year Leopold II became King of the Belgians. The connections of his father allowed him to become a British diplomat and he spent most of his career both in Africa and Brazil raising the alarm about mistreated native peoples. It is safe to say that he was, very early on, an enemy of monarchy and colonialism in general. This caused quite an international sensation and King George V of Great Britain even gave him a knighthood but Casement, evidently, was less than grateful for this honor from his monarch. After he retired from diplomatic service in 1913 he became a full-time republican revolutionary in Ireland.

Oddly enough it was the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland that had been among the most forceful in picking up and joining in on his condemnation of the Congo Free State yet he devoted the rest of his life to the destruction of this very government. He became a major figure in the Irish republican, nationalist crowd and raised money in the USA for the revolutionary cause. This would have been enough to condemn him as a traitor in Great Britain but things became worse with the outbreak of World War I when he actively sought out and negotiated an alliance with Britain’s greatest enemy, the German Empire, in the planned rebellion in Ireland. He even tried to convince Irish prisoners-of-war to form their own unit to fight alongside the Germans against the British. Those plans culminated in the Easter Uprising in 1916 and the proclamation of the first Irish republic.

This uprising, as everyone knows, did not succeed and Casement along with numerous others was arrested, tried and convicted of numerous charges, the most serious of which was treason. The trial also led to the discovery of his diaries which proved Casement to have been a rampant homosexual and pederast, perhaps even a pedophile. He was found guilty and hanged for treason against his King and country in quick order. In short, hardly the stuff of which heroes are made unless you are an anti-monarchist republican revolutionary it seems.

The other most significant figure in the business of opposing King Leopold II and the Congo Free State was Edmund Dene Morel. He was a British journalist, English on the side of his father, French on that of his mother, and had been born in Paris. He also eagerly spread stories, each more horrid than the last, of atrocities in the Congo, all of which he blamed squarely on the King, and he founded the Congo Reform Association in which capacity he made effective use of the report by Casement among his many activities. He recruited numerous famous literary figures to champion his cause, a long list of almost exclusively liberal and very anti-monarchist individuals. He left this work in 1911 and from there his story mirrors that of Casement to a large extent.

Despite being a British subject and born in France he was, very early on, openly sympathetic toward Germany. He wrote in support of Germany during the crisis over Morocco in 1912 and as the build-up to the First World War began he was again openly pro-German. His hatred of King Leopold evidently extended to the whole nation of Belgium as he advocated abandoning them to the Germans, did not think Britain or France should lift a finger to help defend the country and argued against France of Great Britain going to war against Germany. He became very much associated with far-left pacifist groups in Great Britain, particularly the Union of Democratic Control. When it was discovered that his longtime friend Casement had been plotting with the Germans to cause rebellion in Ireland and after he was hanged for treason because of this, Morel began to be suspected of being a German agent.

Morel was put in prison for a time for his anti-war activities and though he was on the side of some issues that were ultimately proven correct, he continued to drift farther and farther to the radical left. He later admitted that he had been a lifelong socialist and remained adamantly so up to his death in Devon in 1924. Now, it must also be said that the misdeeds of these men in no way excuse the misdeeds of King Leopold II, but they are not often even mentioned by those who hold them up as great heroes. However, the core ideologies of these men ultimately caused more death and more misery than even the most exaggerated accounts of the crimes of Leopold II. It is also noteworthy that most monarchists will certainly not hold up the late King as an example of monarchy at its best and yet the enemies of monarchy will hold up socialists, pederasts and traitors as heroes of their own.

you are a weasel who uses weasel words dude, you say"historians as a way to avoid any real discussion, you dont use name beacause all the names of the historians i know you would use like casament and hothscild would get destroyed by these articles.

https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Fake-News-All-Time/dp/B09FCCCFKV

So the counter-argument you're using (which isn't even yours, but taken from another article and copy-and-pasted) is that casement... was a republican who fought for Irish independence and accepted German backing so that makes him a traitor to his own country and the fact his diary reveals his homosexuality (how is this in any way relevant?) and his possible pedophilia (there's no indication of this is his Black Diaries and the author literally pulled it out of his ass), which isn't a rebuttal at all but poisoning the well.

Well, an attempt at poisoning the well since describing the guy as a "republican socialist Irish independence fighter who fought against the monarchies in Europe" seems like a hero figure to me. So yes, unless there's actual proof that these people somehow lied in their report (which were corrobated by Casement's own worst enemy, the British Empire), i would rather trust the irish revolutionary human rights fighter than the absolutist tyranical king (which was an actual pedophile unlike Casement given his run-ins with underage prostitutes)

kami-Here's the deal i already have multiple people on the council rule in my favour and lock the page, you don provide anything but statements. what you do provide is easily destroyed by the sources i use, your response telescope on useless things and you try to say you have no bias which is entirely wrong.i know you didnt watch any of the videos or read any of the sources because you just skim them find a buzzword and focus. if you continue at this point it will be considered vandalism and you will be punished. so at this point find something else to do bro. find another page to edit