Congo Genocide debunked

>alternative hypothesis

TRASHED

alternative hypothesis is a retard who constantly does shit like this because he know his alt-right fanboys will never actually hold him to any standard

heh, Leopold was Belgian and so were the laws he made, you know exactly what I mean

Congo region had the lowest population density on the continent aside from the Sahara

>thealternativehypothesis

Hey guize if u go to imright.com u can see da twuth!

I smell niggers. Nigger lovers.

Welcome to /chx/ - Congo hoax general

>Between 1892 and 1894, the Congo Free State was at war with Tippu Tip, and had begun advancing westward, using an incident at a fort in which Tips forces attacked and defeated an FP garrison due to a dispute over a slave girl.

>And so if a dishonest or ignorant newspaper editor got some pictures or description of a battle in that war, he would have plenty of gory pictures and gruesome details, and he could then say, “this is Leopold’s Congo” to dishonestly seed the idea that this was normal Congo Free State policy for all Congolese.

>In addition, several of the photos of Africans with limbs chopped off have Europeans posing with them; do you imagine that they would pose with them if they had done it themselves? Do you think they would want to take photos because they were proud of doing that themselves?

So the whites didn't do nothing?

he'll be fine

so what's actually in contention here? i'm not going to read the article but if he's arguing congo at the time was very sparsely populated he's telling the truth.

Who is this hack fraud? There are some really bad amateur history blogs out there but god damn this is like the time cube of history.

He's arguing that there aren't many sources and that the press might've been lying. And that there was never enough white people there to blame them for genocide.

alternative hypothesis is a neo-nazi (actual neo-nazi, not just meme one) who just shills /pol/ tier conspiracy theory shit.

Germans were really the only ones, as a nation, that were worse to their colonial subjects than they were before.

British, French, Dutch were openly benevolent rulers. King Leopold was a douche but once Belgium took direct control of the Congo things improved drastically. Portugal and Spain were pretty live and let live. Italy was too incompetent to be taken seriously even by their victims.

But the fucking Germans man. The British had to take in refugees from Namibia and Tanzania constantly because the Krauts were always genociding everybody. I think THIS is the reason Bismarck opposed colonies, because he knew what it'd expose

>alternative hypothesis is a neo-nazi (actual neo-nazi, not just meme one) who just shills /pol/ tier conspiracy theory shit.

>This estimation of numbers doesn't quite match with this other one 50 years later, therefore the entire genocide was a hoax.

Why is this argument so prevalent. Do they not understand what is actually being researched?

>About “The Alternative Hypothesis”

>Welcome to our site! Here at TheAlternativeHypothesis.org, you can find an alternative to the status quo perspective on issues like race and diversity

>When trying to come up for an expose to avoid dealing with the arguments on this site, some people call us “racist”. This site is mostly in the business of making factual statements and empirical arguments. As such, it is only “racist” to the degree that facts and numbers are “racist”

>Q: "This site has non-peer reviewed articles. Why should I trust them?"

>This website is not an academic journal

>we exist within the online community of people which has become the alt-right

hmmmm, really made me think

Okay, so you're telling me that the Alt hype isn't an academic source? No fucking shit. Now explain to me how 200 Belgian officers managed to kill 10 million Africans.

>explain my idiotic and incorrect framing of a historical event
Well Ryan, since you never went to school or bothered to read Hochschild’s book, you came up with a ridiculous narrative so that you can keep pretending colonialism was sunshine and rainbows and white people have never done anything wrong ever.

>Okay, so you're telling me that the Alt hype isn't an academic source?
Im telling you he a neo-nazi shilling propaganda. His own site outright says nothing is peer reviewed. Have some self respect and hold things to a higher standard user.

...

I consider him a hard righter authoritarian, white nationalist but not really a neonazi. The kinds of people that populate youtube and even twitter that post stuff about Jews being behind everything including War of 1812 (an actual thing I saw in a popular thread on twitter) now those are a different story.

>you came up with a ridiculous narrative
You're the one claiming that 200 Belgian officers killed 10 million Africans.

>Im telling you he a neo-nazi shilling propaganda
There's no evidence that would imply that he's a neo-nazi. Stop throwing that word around like a mindless autist.

>There's no evidence that would imply that he's a neo-nazi.
except for the fact that his own website admits itself that its part of the alt-right. youre shit got called out user, deal with it

the congo genocide didnt happen but i wish it did

The Alt-Right is a loose coalition of white nationalist ideologies. WTF are you talking about?

>The Alt-Right is a loose coalition of white nationalist ideologies.
>actually truing this hard to split hairs after you got called out

also, most important part was the part where the site admits nothing on it is peer reviewed or academic. Its neo-nazi trash, and this thread is an attempt to shill psuedo history to a bunch of history nerds. Pathetic attempt /pol/

Okay fine then, if you're so confident that the Congo genocide happened then explain to me how 200 Belgian officers managed to kill 10 million Africans?

>prove my absurd claim that you never made
>what no why would I do that dumbass that isn’t anyone’s real claim
>hey don’t call that claim stupid you’re the one who made it lol
Oh I see this is pigeon chess. Well if we’re already at the flip the board and shit everywhere stage, let’s boogie then. You are a petulant manchild with a barely functioning brain and literally no understanding of any historical event from before 1980, with only a tenuous grasp on the time from then to the present. You’ve never read Hochschild’s book or anything written about the Congo Free State beyond the utterly idiotic article you posted, which you lapped up like the pathetic sheep you very obviously are. While the death toll can be disputed, since accurate population counts are difficult to obtain for that period, the myraid abuses of the CFS are well documented by a vast array of primary and secondary sources. To answer your stupid question, fear and realpolitik is how a smaller group of Europeans could engineer a massively exploitative and abusive state. As data on lynchings in the Post reconstruction American South will attest to, you don’t need to do that much to keep people in line. In San Domingo (that’s Haiti for you complete historical illiterates) the black population completely dwarfed the whites, and yet they only engaged in wholesale revolt in 1793, despite centuries of profoundly cruel treatement and mass slaughter. Terror is extremely effective.

>you can't be held responsible for someone's death unless you directly murdered them yourself
this is your mind on stormfaggotry

But that's arguing about numbers not whether it happened or not.
10 millions is a supposed total number of dead (that is pretty unlikely) and 200 is the number of white people at one point in time in the Free State (out of 23 years of its existence).

ok so you have no actual conclusive evidence 10 million Congolese perished gotcha

Why does it matter if it was 10 million or 100 thousand? The hand chopping, massacres by the Force Publique, the forced labor, the starvation, all the cruelty and horrors of the regime are well attested to. The question of the exact death toll is irrelevant and highly disputed, with estimates ranging from 1-15 million. The only reason you even think it’s important is because it’s in Hochschild’s book. Which it only sort of is, Hochschild mentions he read an estimate with that number and that was what interested him in the CFS in his foreword, he never makes any guess as to the death toll in his book because it would be outside his expertise, he just tells the story of the discovery of the abuses and then the campaign against the CFS. Stop swallowing the tripe this idiot is feeding you.

yes yes we understand the congolese were subjected to brutal horrors, we understand that, the issue at hand is the precise death toll, i'm not even the other guy nor did i even bother reading the article but if all the guy is raising a stink about is the actual death tool there is no need to drag the hand chopping and brutal working conditions into the argument

Everyone arguing over whether a small organization like the Force Publique could murder x million Congolese are forgetting that most of the deaths came from epidemics like malaria and trypanosomiasis, which colonial rule in the FCR helped greatly to spread. Of course the mercs didn't cut of 10 million fuckin hands, there'd be no time to do any of the actual profitable shit if they did.

Most of the hand chopping and massacres were committed by local Congolese tribesman. Not to mention that there was a war going on with Arab slave traders and town massacres were common. To blame all of that on Leopard II is ridiculous.

No you misunderstand, the article is straight up whitey dindu nuffin wholesale Congo Free State apologia, featuring such choice quotes as “In addition, several of the photos of Africans with limbs chopped off have Europeans posing with them; do you imagine that they would pose with them if they had done it themselves? Do you think they would want to take photos because they were proud of doing that themselves?”

The author says that because the death toll is in question clearly all the primary sources were faked and the whole thing is a hoax.

The sheer population displacement and warring due to quota policies also helped

He also wrote that the journalists were probably dishonest and that the entire thing was nothing special.

Leopold ll was the one who owned the fucking shithole and dictated it's polices.

This is how it worked for the average African.

Okay every village has a quota. You niggers need to fill this very unrealistic quota. If you don't you either fucking DIE or get MAIMED or your family get killed/chopped. However soldiers aren't really reliable to actually do the killings alongside resource issues for bullets being potentially wasted, so they need proof of death that yes an bullet was used to punish some poor guy.

So an economy of sorts comes up. If my village will guarantee fail the quota I can pay off soldiers with hands of ANOTHER village or else my kid gets killed or my hand gets chopped then upon second visit past the first hand chop I just get killed. For soldiers they basically get hands as currency and thus have an incentive to go hunt living people for hands if they did misue bullets..

>British, French, Dutch were openly benevolent rulers. King Leopold was a douche but once Belgium took direct control of the Congo things improved drastically. Portugal and Spain were pretty live and let live. Italy was too incompetent to be taken seriously even by their victims.

Lol you are extremely delusional.

No the Free State was entirely his as in his own personal property like a house or one's own land.

>Now explain to me how 200 Belgian officers managed to kill 10 million Africans.
Just because they paid/ordered/organized africans to do it doesn't make them less responsible.

Do you have any documents that prove that was part of Leopold II's policy? It seems retarded to kill your only labor force.

Congo genocide was caused by bombings, the Congo actually had a pool.

The Force Publique at its peak only had 24,000 men.

Plus, the Europeans posing next to the mutilated Congolese were missionaries attempting to show people in Europe and America the atrocities that were occuring, not hunters posing next to their trophies.

Yes, and?

You don't think that's enough to kill 10 million people? It's not like they walked outside and did it all at once like Straya vs the Emu's.

So they killed over 400,000 people a year?

Very easy to kill a ton of people with 24,000k men.

Sure. They just delegated it, like says.

>Villages get quotas
>Soldiers are corrupt/too lazy/too few to enforce quotas
>accept hands as proof of punishment for failed quotas
>Villagers attack other villages to steal THEIR hands to fake punishing their own
>Solders attack random fucking people for hands because they getting paid for doing their duty, aka punishing the people, aka paid by the hand
>the quotas remain because the Africans aren't considered human and are therefore irrelevant

ITT brainlets attacking the source with no attempt to address the arguments presented.

>The Alt-Right is a loose coalition of white nationalist ideologies
Including neo-nazis

The Congo Genocide never happened but it should have.

>stormtard makes a thread to shill his opinion
>everyone ridicules his ''theories''
>posts brainlet memes and calls people niggers
every time

People are attacking TheAlternativeHypothesis because he is currently destroying the so called 'sceptic' community on youtube on race realism.

I wouldn't be surprised if this thread wasn't made by Kraut in another attempt to defame Ryan.

What arguments? OP posted the source only. So we're legitimately attacking his source.

On the other hand, German adminstration of places like Samoa was probably nearly as close to being 'benevolent rulers' as you're likely to find.

Your post sounds like colonial powers had universal and consistent policies towards their colonies. This was very far from being the case.

>I'm not even going to finish reading this article.
>The first claim is based on the assumption that the population density average of Africa was the same throughout the continent.
This means that he high balls the population estimate of the Congos, as it would be based on more developed places with higher population density

You aren't attacking the source with anything substantive, his estimates are more legitimate than the estimates marxist historian use to claim that 100 million amerindians were killed in the US.

I don't see you guy attacking that claim, or the proponents of it despite it illegitimacy

>Why does it matter if it was 10 million or 100 thousand? The hand chopping, massacres by the Force Publique, the forced labor, the starvation, all the cruelty and horrors of the regime are well attested to.
Because it paints a different picture, one is committing a genocide for no reason and the other is failing to keep your black colonial enforcers in line. Moral culpability is completely different.

The reason why you choose to ignore this distinction is because you want to paint European colonialism as genocidal lunacy when it wasn't. You are failing to defend you lies on the plausibility due to the facts, so now you must resort to word games to demonize ideas, peoples and ideologies you don't like

>you arent questioning the validity of totally unrelate dthing x at this very minuite
>therefore you shouldnt critically analyse y in the manner that you do with literally everything else

Behold the inner functionings of the /pol/lack brain

>one is committing a genocide for no reason and the other is failing to keep your black colonial enforcers in lin
Is thrre a diffrrence?

Are you legitimately retarded?

>Behold the inner functionings of the /pol/lack brain
This is the pilpull you have to resort to? We can actually see the other threads and remember their course, in there when some stormfag points out that the population density of North America is absurd, your ilk will attack the person pointing this out. Lurkers in this thread should note that the style of your counter argument is perfectly in line with that kind of behaviour

What the fuck do you know about my ilk?

Maybe i have questiined those statistics and maybe you havent seent, but what the fuck does it matter, the point is that the population analysis that is used in ops article is silly and makes no sense, but he puts it foreaars as a legitomate histroical argument which it isnt. Furthermore you dont even try and dedend the article and immidiatley start talking about totally unrelated stuff to disteact from that fact.

>What the fuck do you know about my ilk?
Being a /pol/tard referencing the spuriously reasoned article of a blatantly partisan website of dubious reputation, he probably thinks that your "ilk" are communist muslim atheist marxist 56% nu-males working in cahoots with the Jews to cuck the white race out of existence.

>alternative
There it is again. What is it with it contrarians & retards and this adjective?
>alt right
>alternative medicine
>alternativehypothesis.org
>"alternative facts"

The FP was run by Leopold mercenaries who in turn took ques from admins who in turn deferred to Leo's will

>thealternativehypothesis.org/

>In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html

The irony here is that the source obviously didn't read King Leopold's Ghost.

The number he's arguing against comes from an anecdote in the introduction of the book about how the author heard of the Free State.

The work itself cites multiple primary source documents at length, which is a hell of a lot more credible than this article's shitty musings (e.g. doing shit tier population statistics and using the presence of links and charts to give your work a scholarly veneer instead of just saying "sources differ on the population of the Congo at this time, here is a range of estimates")

"People say King Leopold's destroyed documentation of his crimes, but they can't know for sure!!!"

This article obviously didn't read the book. We know that people Belgian officials admitted to it and some saved documents. We know because numerous people wrote about what they saw and did in the Free State.

All this article is is shitty math, and a bunch of arguments that seem like common sense, but actually belie that the author didn't read the book they are critiquing, and knows his audience won't either... because Alt-Right kekfags are retards who only read shit that reinforces their initial misconceptions.

It's more frustrating when you know the book is full of letters people wrote about seeing or engaging in mass slave labor.

Conrad himself was not in the Congo long an managed to see a slave beat to death with a whip, and a commander with a garden of severed African heads.

dey wuz good boiz

Why do people have to "debunk" every genocide claim?
Even the Rwandan genocide got its contrarians: Africans didn't have the time to do it, so an English decided to do it for them.

Do you think the writer of that trash is too stupid/ignorant to consider that there were missionaries, Belgian whistleblowers, journalists, etc that were horrified and documented what they saw, or do they know and are pretending otherwise to sway the minds of moronic readers?

And they also got hundreds of people to write fake journal entries and letters home about the mass killing that archivists found later.

...and they also got hundreds of journalists, including celebrities, to fake articles about the slavery and mass killing in the colony, which of course wasn't real. Yup, a bunch of early 20th century Europeans and Americans faked all this shit to trick everyone into thinking something really evil happened in a country no one can find on a map despite it being the size of Western Europe, for kicks.

Little did they know that millions would die in the Congo in the 1990s-2000s too and no one would give a fuck, making it a pretty weak Jewish plot, eh?

>>We take empirical evidence very seriously, so expect a lot of it.
>>When trying to come up for an expose to avoid dealing with the arguments on this site, some people call us “racist”. This site is mostly in the business of making factual statements and empirical arguments.
>>This site has non-peer reviewed articles. Why should I trust them?
>>This website is not an academic journal. As such, while articles are often discussed with peers prior to being published, they are not put through a formal process of peer review.

How could a few hundred US soldiers force 17,000 Cherokee to walk for so long?

I mean, where are the sources that even say the Trail of Tears happened? How would 30% of a group die just from being forced to walk lol.

White ppl never did nothing!

Same reason people decide to make up genocide claims

Seems like most of the controversy comes from attaching the word "genocide" to it since its so politically loaded rather than arguing against the atrocities and millions of deaths.

I'd actually like to see an investigation into the parts of Africa maintained by the German Empire. Though certainly not from anyone willing to say "Belgian imperialists dindu nuffin to the Congo".

isn't the european a missionary publicizing the atrocities? so this is the level of dishonesty /pol/ has reached...

In German South West Africa you could get away with a massive ton of shit against any of the natives.

I used to main /pol/ from like 2011-14 but we got a huge influx of idiots from Zimmerman and Mike Brown.

The_Donald and Stormfront take over totally ruined it and now it's too fast for any actual debate and also painfully retarded.

bump

/pol/ is the new /b/

Calling your hypothesis for alternative feels very redundant.

The mainstream media often denies alternative viewpoints about race and historical events. Ryan is simply offering an alternative hypothesis.