King Leopold's Ghost Pgs 1-32

Open ended discussion questions:

1) What do forgotten genocides such as the one described here say about the historians which recorded it as well as modern society for forgetting such an atrocity?

2) Could King Leopold II's lack of direct involvement be one of the first intentional uses of plausible deniability?

Reaction:

This book, honestly, isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. The topic is interesting, primarily because it is something significant in history which is an either forgotten or unfamiliar topic among most people. What I find to be intriguing in this chapter is in the Introduction. At the time of its occurrence, it largely went unrecognized on the mainstream media until a prominent, white man brought it to light. What I find so interesting is that nearly a half-a-dozen people prior to him had either hinted at the topic or come out with it outright, only to be forgotten both by history. The difference? The ones who were never recognized were black. Now I am perfectly aware the racism was still alive and well in the 1900's, but could people really not set aside their differences when 4-8 million Congolese are being systematically enslaved, mutilated and executed? Those are holocaust-type numbers.