Summary Of The Butcher Of Congo By Baffour Ankomah

“When these other mass murders went largely unnoticed except by their victims, why, in England and the United States, was there such a storm of righteous protest about the Congo?” In the reigning of King Leopold at Congo, unfairness, judgement, and brutality are only some of the things seen. In Baffour Ankomah‘s essay, The Butcher of Congo, Ankomah talks of Adam Hochschild’s new book, King Leopold’s ghost. He describes it as ‘brilliant’, and both the story and events as something that “..Africa and the world must not forget.” Ankomah points out several details and central ideas that can be seen in King Leopold’s Ghost, and with them he includes excerpts of Hochschild’s explaining and opinions: little compliments like, “Hochschild tells it better”

here and “Hochschild tries to be fair here by pointing…” there. The reader may notice that for the majority of the essay, Ankomah deliberates why King Leopold chose to do some things. By doing this, Ankomah provides the reader background information that talks of the terror that King Leopold brought to the Congo, which can be summed up in one word: cold-hearted. To emphasize his points, he uses excerpts from King Leopold’s Ghost, which is excellent due to the similar opinions that Ankomah and Hochschild share. He talks of the rough behavior and unpleasantness that other countries brought to colonies, which help him show the differences between the ways of King Leopold and of other countries. With Ankomah’s many pieces of information and strong arguments, he tries to prove what many may not know: there were other countries during King Leopold’s ruling that were equally and even more harsh.
As Ankomah points out, King Leopold brought desolation to the Congo. By stressing this point, his essay is more constructed and strong. One of the most unpopular occurrences that happened during the reign of King Leopold was the “rubber terror”. This was a time when King Leopold was on a rubber rush, therefore punishing the workers brutally if not enough rubber was extracted. The reader could see through the ways of punishment that work was not optional for King Leopold. If a community were to refuse the King’s commands, one or more of several things could happen, each one more disturbing than the one before. Some people of that community or village could be taken as hostage, tortured with dreadful equipment like slave chains. There was even more unpleasant forms of punishment to the community as a whole, including the burning of the village, military interference, and the delay of receiving food at food ports. If those forms of punishment weren’t enough, then the next one should be: the vicious chicotte, “made of hippopotamus hide”, a whip that’s strokes “left permanent scars”. If the author had chosen to leave out these background details, the central idea would not have been comprehensive, making the reader unsure of certain details. Of course, these basic facts did not come from personal knowledge, as the reader can tell, they are quoted from King Leopold’s Ghost, chosen carefully to fit the central idea. Which leads to the next point…….
To prove a point as big as Ankomah’s, he needed to make sure to have sufficient evidence and support to show his opinions. The primary source he used in this essay was King Leopold’s ghost, which not only provided information, the author had similar opinions to those of Ankomah’s. These excerpts from the text give the essay rich details about the events happening during King Leopold’s time. One excerpt that really improved Ankomah’s writing provides details about the forms of punishment that King Leopold and his crew performed. Since this excerpt was well written and fully understandable, there was no need for Ankomah to go back and summarize what it talked about. However, when there were things to clarify, Ankomah summarized them perfectly up in the shortest ways possible. This can be seen where Ankomah talked about how “the Germans poisoned the waterholes”, and how they “bayoneted or clubbed to death with rifle stocks” their enemies, the Hereros. With these excerpts and a couple of others relating to the Germans, he concluded that “the Germans did as much in Namibia, if not worse, than Leopold in Congo”. All in all, Ankomah’s argument was strong thanks to the well written excerpts from King Leopold’s Ghost.
The whole point of Ankomah’s great research and paper was to prove a point: King Leopold’s terror on the Congo was not the only exploitation and genocide occurring during this time.

Like Hochschild says, this true story was “the great forgetting”. Many folks overlooked this detail, and ended up concluding that King Leopold and his reign over the Congo was one of the worst. However, this is not true, what with “what the Americans and the British were doing, or had done, elsewhere.” Yes, King Leopold was not so good of a guy, but that point is emphasized too far as Hochschild points out, “that is so only if you look at sub-Saharan Africa as the arbitrary checkerboard formed by colonial boundaries”. This brutal and even worse behaviour could be seen in various ruling countries, some of which include: France, Portugal, Germany, America, and Britain. One great example of these countries’s brutality is how “thousands of refugees ….fled across the Congo River to escape Leopold’s regime”, and how they “eventually fled back to escape the French”. This piece of evidence really helps contrast the things that were going on in France and the Congo, and with this, it seems as if things are going way better in Congo, which is saying something. Another country that gives a bad impression based on this evidence is America. During this time, America was in the middle of a war in a war with the Filipinos, where they “tortured prisoners, burned villages, killed 20,000 rebels, and saw 200,000

more Filipinos die of war-related hunger or disease.” This list seems a bit similar to that of King Leopold’s, but because of that it proves that there were other countries that were equally as harsh as King Leopold. One of the last countries that Ankomah shines a light upon is Britain. They too, during that time, were doing bad, maybe even worse. Britain at that time was having “killings of Aborigines in Australia”, which if one is unfamiliar with, is the killings of plants, animals, or people that have had a long past, that has been there for a while. When contrasting to the things happening at Congo, this one would totally be labeled as “more ruthless”. This form of abuse is so harsh, and to go farther than it already is, Hochschild can be seen comparing it to the orders of Von Trotha, a German military commander that showed no compassion or pity. Yet despite the terrible things happening in other countries, there was “no international criticism”. It is unfair for all to be “focused exclusively on Leopold’s Congo” if none observe each other’s mistakes, and all seemed to have some. Like Hochschild states: “the sad truth is that the men who carried it out for Leopold were no more murderous than many Europeans then at work or at war elsewhere in Africa.”
Fortunately for the Congo, King Leopold’s reign did not last forever.

This is due to the Sir Roger Casement, an Irish investigator that was sent to observe Congo. His description was too harsh and disturbing for the British to publish without making a “sanitized version”, to which when printed, got a very upsetting reaction and an “18-page letter of protest” from Casement. Alas, “The Butcher of Congo” was gone by March of 1908, leaving behind “110 million francs worth of debt.” Funny enough, Britain gave King Leopold 50 million francs “as a mark of gratitude for his great sacrifices made for the Congo.” As if, although one does have to give him credit for not being as terrible as other countries. A time of chicottes, fraud, cruelness, and “sliced hands”, King Leopold and his ruling over Congo is something unforgettable. “It was the brutality of Leopold’s agents that would catch the eye of the world.” A time when ruling countries like France sent refugees back to Congo. A time when “brutal” was the only would people knew. A time when a place like Congo, ruled by King Leopold II, caught “the eye of the world”. A time when a ruler like King Leopold II was protested and criticized, while genocides and crudeness dotted the

globe.