Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Who Was Worse Than Hitler?

The Lonious Monk said:
I hear what you're saying, but you have to be careful about examples like that. "Christians civilizing savages" was the narrative given to justify actions in the Americas, but was never really the truth. It's just the story that was told. Columbus wasn't sent to the Americas to civilize the Natives. He was sent to find gold and riches to help Spain maintain supremacy.

There is a difference between building an empire where all the conquered territories have rights and reap the benefits of the empire and something like the British Empire where all the conquered territories were basically just fodder to feed the conqueror.

It is a tricky thing for sure, but again, history is full of successful empires that thrived for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...

Ok. Let's use GK and the Mongol conquest as an example. All the things you mentioned in the underlined is present there. Every civilization that was conquered by GK and absorbed into the Mongol empire benefitted from them building roads, and having a single, unified currency, religious reforms where they wanted them and maintaining their own religion where the didn't want reform, etc, etc, etc. They reaped the benefits of the Mongol empire. But if we were to ask them if they would rather go back to how things were before GK came and they get back all the people who were massacred to make that new life possible...I think they'd choose to have their people back.

Whatever though. This is prolly a conversation that's too in-depth for a forum.

Salute.
 
Mr.LV said:
King Leopold II
View attachment 1366603
_112873650_alamy_r0rg0h.jpg.webp
Click to expand...
That’s his name

I seen photos of him and heard of what he has done: I started to think why is he not talked about but Hitler is. All of his victims are black, that’s why they are not talked about. Holocaust vs Slavery which is worse, 40 years vs 400. All the horrible things that happened to Jewish people also happened to black people and even more not talked about. The man made lakes wiping out homes and still their history is drowned today. The throwing babies into alligators / crocodiles is new info to many people. There are old posters of what happened and still being hidden or viewed as if it never happened
 
5th Letter said:
His victims and their descendants get to shape the narrative.
Click to expand...
Super this.

If Congolese people had been allowed to immigrate here, shaped Hollywood, owned media and social media companies, ingrained themselves in academia and influenced what was written in history books for the following generations, we would be using Leopold as the litmus test for evil due to the framing of the narrative.
 
Hitler was responsible for 6 million people I think Stalin was responsible for like 6 million and King Leopold was responsible for 10 million estimated.

I don’t know why folks are comparing who did the worst genocides.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the fact that Leopold killed africans is the main reason that he's not looked at as worse than Hitler. That's prolly 25% of it, maybe. It's more because his shit wasn't attached to any great world conflict. Hitler's bullshit was wrapped up in the blanket of WWII and everything that goes along with it. If that was the case for Leopold's bullshit, we would look at him differently, as a whole.
 
mryounggun said:
I don't think the fact that Leopold killed africans is the main reason that he's not looked at as worse than Hitler. That's prolly 25% of it, maybe. It's more because his shit wasn't attached to any great world conflict. Hitler's bullshit was wrapped up in the blanket of WWII and everything that goes along with it. If that was the case for Leopold's bullshit, we would look at him differently, as a whole.
Click to expand...

This is fair but I think the largest part of it is the fact that Hitler’s victims have so much media, entertainment, and academic influence today to the point where they have a huge hand in shaping our perception of him.
 
Stiff said:
This is fair but I think the largest part of it is the fact that Hitler’s victims have so much media, entertainment, and academic influence today to the point where they have a huge hand in shaping our perception of him.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think that has very little to do with it. Whatever though.
 
mryounggun said:
I don't think the fact that Leopold killed africans is the main reason that he's not looked at as worse than Hitler. That's prolly 25% of it, maybe. It's more because his shit wasn't attached to any great world conflict. Hitler's bullshit was wrapped up in the blanket of WWII and everything that goes along with it. If that was the case for Leopold's bullshit, we would look at him differently, as a whole.
Click to expand...

Yeah, WWII put a spotlight on Hitler's atrocities. Everyone know him and the Nazis. A lot of people in the West probably don't know who Leopold is let alone what he did.
 
When white people were out taking over the world, they did a lot of crazy shit as a collective that we can't really narrow down to one person. For example, they basically exterminated the native Tasmanians for no good reason. They basically just killed them all off because they could. You don't get more evil than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top