The word ‘Anti-Semitism,’ which was given validity on the basis of Hitler’s crimes against the Jews, is thrown around today just about every time there is a profound criticism or antagonism of a Jewish individual.
This is a form of retributive consideration for what can best be described as Hitler’s most prominent act of barbarism. The Holocaust’ is a word that consistently sees airtime around the media, internet discussion, international politics, and the educational curriculum all over the world. It is challenging to come up with an individual who has heard nothing of the Holocaust that took place during the second world war, and the concentration camps have become a cultural symbol of oppression, racism, and barbarism.
The crimes of Hitler still resound through the global cultural and political landscape even to this day.
Now, imagine how oddly surprising it is to find that there is another instance of absolute atrocity meted out on a group or a race of humans on this earth that can arguably be said to be a much more abhorrence than Hitler’s actions against the Jews.
As much as I do not want to draw comparisons between two horrible actions, it would still be a delusion grandeur to imply that there isn’t a perspective hierarchy ascribed in our moral considerations.
Given that, even though killing one human is a morally abhorrent action, killing ten would come with more moral weight, no matter how negligible it may appear.
Why then are the actions of Leopold II of Belgium who is responsible for the death of 10million Africans of Congolese descent have no apparent airtime that rivals half a quarter of as much as Hitler’s get?
Why is this one instance of inhumanity rarely talked about, or what can be considered as whispers drowned within the waves of far less morally implicating actions?
Leopold’s control of the Congo basins was a direct consequence of its allocation under his authority by the Berlin conference.
One would have to imagine the moral integrity of European counties sitting around a table, to deliberate and share amongst them, lands of which they have neither ancestral nor legal claims and to impose on its populace, an alien authority consonant to their cultural conscience.
Maybe because, contrary to Hitler’s actions against the Jews, the entirety of European countries present at the Berlin conference to share the lands of Sub-sahara Africa amongst them like some platter of meat is all morally culpable for the crimes that took place in the Congo basins.
Forced enslavement and imposed labour over minimal welfare of an entire population of people, exposition to natural hazards such as diseases, hunger and the elements, severing of limbs of those deemed unwilling to conform to forced unpaid labour, the raid, and murder of entire villages and direct killing of millions still up to this day, have an observable impact on the population growth, culture, and economics of the Congo basin.
Why is nobody talking about this? Why Is this atrocity seldom talked about by anyone on any local or international platform?
Why do schools not attach this significant historical event to their curriculums?
Why?
Because; it happened in Africa!
This is a land that is nothing more than a vulnerable patch of earth teaming with resources that is up for European grabs. The methods of extortion and the moral consequences of the horrible thefts are of no significant implications to the Caucasoid sensibilities. Africans are people with less moral value than any other.
There wasn’t any major war that could be argued amplified the actions of Leopold. It was a depiction of the ethical poverty of colonial imposition, racial supremacism, and the enslavement of the sub-Saharan Africans hanging on Cauca-European conscience.
The need to hide and pretend this didn’t happen is a deafening testament to the poor moral value ascribed to Sub-saharan human groups by a global politics defined by abject hypocrisy.
I am going to tell you a tale of two murderers because the world is only talking about ONE!
