Dr. Bruce Gilley

Watch Full Episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVYA_sjHztQ For the past 25 years, the idea of the Congo has been closely linked in the Western imagination to the 1998 book King Leopold’s Ghost by the American journalist Adam Hochschild. The book is widely assigned in high schools and colleges, and it regularly tops best-seller lists in colonial, African, and Western history. Hochschild has become a sort of king of the Congo, or at least of its history. The book is reflexively cited by reputable scholars in their footnotes any time they wish to assert that it is “well known” and “beyond doubt” that sinister men in Europe wrought havoc in Africa over a century ago. Any discussion of the Congo, or of European colonialism more generally, invariably begins with the question: “Have you read King Leopold’s Ghost?” Follow Dr. Peter Boghossian on Twitter: https://twitter.com/peterboghossian Follow Dr. Bruce Gilley on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BruceDGilley Follow Belgian Congo on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BasedCongo #CongoFreeState #PeterBoghossian #BruceGilley

Read Dr. Gilley's Article: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/king-hochschilds-hoax/ Read Hochschild's Response: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-ghost-still-haunts/ For the past 25 years, the idea of the Congo has been closely linked in the Western imagination to the 1998 book King Leopold’s Ghost by the American journalist Adam Hochschild. The book is widely assigned in high schools and colleges, and it regularly tops best-seller lists in colonial, African, and Western history. Hochschild has become a sort of king of the Congo, or at least of its history. The book is reflexively cited by reputable scholars in their footnotes any time they wish to assert that it is “well known” and “beyond doubt” that sinister men in Europe wrought havoc in Africa over a century ago. Any discussion of the Congo, or of European colonialism more generally, invariably begins with the question: “Have you read King Leopold’s Ghost?” I have read it. And I can declare that it is a vast hoax, full of distortions and errors both numerous and grave, a few of which I will detail in this short essay. Some people might view “King Hochschild’s Hoax,” as we might call it, as an empowering fable for modern Africans at the expense of the white man. But its debilitating effects on Africa, and on the Congo in particular, make the opposite more nearly the case. It is a callous and negligent chicotte (hippo whip) lash on the backs of all black Africans, narcissistic guilt porn for white liberals at the expense of the African. The Congolese lawyer Marcel Yabili calls it “the greatest falsification in modern history,” a compliment of sorts, I suppose. Hochschild’s book is a history of the private domain of the Belgian King Léopold II in the Congo river basin that was founded in 1885 and then handed over to the Belgian government in 1908. The book alternates between diabolical accounts of Léopold and hagiographic accounts of three of his critics: the British campaigner E.D. Morel, the British diplomat Roger Casement, and the black American missionary William Henry Sheppard. The narrative style is dark and conspiratorial, from the initial plans for the domain to its final dissolution. All along, Hochschild’s aim is to elevate the story into one of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by the West upon the Rest. There have been two documentary films about Hochschild’s fable, both travesties of art as well as fact. But the worst is yet to come. A dramatized Hollywood version by the American directors Ben Affleck and Martin Scorsese, co-produced with the singer and activist Harry Belafonte, has been in development since 2019. The history of the Congo might have survived one gut punch from California (Hochschild did his research entirely at libraries in the state and teaches at Berkeley). But once Hollywood weighs in on the matter, history as such will be impossible. Before that happens, let’s set the record straight and end this most malicious form of imperial plunder. Follow Bruce Gilley on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BruceDGilley Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BasedCongo #BruceGilley #LeopoldsGhost #AdamHochschild #CongoFreeState #LeopoldsGhost #KingHochschildsHoax #KingLeopoldII #JudeRusso #TheAmericanConservative

The subjective legitimacy approach asks whether the people subject to colonialism treated it, through their beliefs and actions, as rightful. As Hechter showed, alien rule has often been legitimate in world history because it has provided better governance than the indigenous alternative. Yet anti-colonial critics simply assert that colonialism was, in Hopkins’s words, “a foreign imposition lacking popular legitimacy.” Until very late, European colonialism appears to have been highly legitimate and for good reasons. Millions of people moved closer to areas of more intensive colonial rule, sent their children to colonial schools and hospitals, went beyond the call of duty in positions in colonial governments, reported crimes to colonial police, migrated from non-colonized to colonized areas, fought for colonial armies, and participated in colonial political processes—all relatively voluntary acts. Indeed, the rapid spread and persistence of Western colonialism with very little force relative to the populations and geographies concerned is prima facie evidence of its acceptance by subject populations compared to the feasible alternatives. The “preservers,” “facilitators,” and “collaborators” of colonialism, as Abernethy shows, far outnumbered the “resisters,” at least until very late: “Imperial expansion was frequently the result not just of European push but also of indigenous pull." In Borneo, the Sultan of Brunei installed an English traveler James Brooke, as the rajah of his chaotic province of Sarawak in 1841. Order and prosperity expanded to such an extent that even once a British protectorate was established in 1888, the Sultan preferred to leave it under Brooke family control until 1946. Sir Alan Burns, the governor of the Gold Coast during World War II, noted that “had the people of the Gold Coast wished to push us into the sea there was little to prevent them. But this was the time when the people came forward in their thousands, not with empty protestations of loyalty but with men to serve in the army... and with liberal gifts to war funds and war charities. This was curious conduct for people tired of British rule.” In most colonial areas, subject peoples either faced grave security threats from rival groups or they saw the benefits of being governed by a modernized and liberal state. Patrice Lumumba, who became an anti-colonial agitator only very late, praised Belgian colonial rule in his autobiography of 1962 for “restoring our human dignity and turning us into free, happy, vigorous, and civilized men.” Chinua Achebe’s many pro-colonial statements, meanwhile, have been virtually airbrushed from memory by anti-colonial ideology. The few scholars who take note of such evidence typically dismiss it as a form of false consciousness. The failure of anti-colonial critique to come to terms with the objective benefits and subjective legitimacy of colonialism points to a third and deeper failure: it was never intended to be “true” in the sense of being a scientific claim justified through shared standards of inquiry that was liable to falsification. The origins of anti-colonial thought were political and ideological. The purpose was not historical accuracy but contemporaneous advocacy. Today, activists associate “decolonization” (or “postcolonialism”) with all manner of radical social transformation, which unintentionally ties historic conclusions to present-day endeavors. Unmoored from historical fact, postcolonialism became what Williams called a metropolitan flaneur culture of attitude and performance whose recent achievements include an inquiry into the glories of sadomasochism among Third World women and a burgeoning literature on the horrors of colonialism under countries that never had colonies. Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BasedCongo Follow Professor Gilley on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BruceDGilley Follow TRIGGERnometry on Twitter: https://twitter.com/triggerpod #BruceGilley #Racism #colonialism

Until very late, European colonialism appears to have been highly legitimate and for good reasons. Millions of people moved closer to areas of more intensive colonial rule, sent their children to colonial schools and hospitals, went beyond the call of duty in positions in colonial governments, reported crimes to colonial police, migrated from non-colonized to colonized areas, fought for colonial armies, and participated in colonial political processes—all relatively voluntary acts. Indeed, the rapid spread and persistence of Western colonialism with very little force relative to the populations and geographies concerned is prima facie evidence of its acceptance by subject populations compared to the feasible alternatives. The “preservers,” “facilitators,” and “collaborators” of colonialism, as Abernethy shows, far outnumbered the “resisters,” at least until very late: “Imperial expansion was frequently the result not just of European push but also of indigenous pull.” In Borneo, the Sultan of Brunei installed an English traveler James Brooke, as the rajah of his chaotic province of Sarawak in 1841. Order and prosperity expanded to such an extent that even once a British protectorate was established in 1888, the Sultan preferred to leave it under Brooke family control until 1946. Sir Alan Burns, the governor of the Gold Coast during World War II, noted that “had the people of the Gold Coast wished to push us into the sea there was little to prevent them. But this was the time when the people came forward in their thousands, not with empty protestations of loyalty but with men to serve in the army . . . and with liberal gifts to war funds and war charities. This was curious conduct for people tired of British rule.” In most colonial areas, subject peoples either faced grave security threats from rival groups or they saw the benefits of being governed by a modernized and liberal state. Patrice Lumumba, who became an anti-colonial agitator only very late, praised Belgian colonial rule in his autobiography of 1962 for “restoring our human dignity and turning us into free, happy, vigorous, and civilized men.” Chinua Achebe’s many pro-colonial statements, meanwhile, have been virtually airbrushed from memory by anti-colonial ideology. The few scholars who take note of such evidence typically dismiss it as a form of false consciousness. The failure of anti-colonial critique to come to terms with the objective benefits and subjective legitimacy of colonialism points to a third and deeper failure: it was never intended to be “true” in the sense of being a scientific claim justified through shared standards of inquiry that was liable to falsification. The origins of anti-colonial thought were political and ideological. The purpose was not historical accuracy but contemporaneous advocacy. Today, activists associate “decolonization” (or “postcolonialism”) with all manner of radical social transformation, which unintentionally ties historic conclusions to present-day endeavors. Unmoored from historical fact, postcolonialism became what Williams called a metropolitan flaneur culture of attitude and performance whose recent achievements include an inquiry into the glories of sadomasochism among Third World women and a burgeoning literature on the horrors of colonialism under countries that never had colonies. This third failure of anti-colonial critique is perhaps most damaging. It is not just an obstacle to historical truth, which itself is a grave disservice. Even as a means of contemporary advocacy, it is self-wounding. For it essentially weaponizes the colonial past, as the gradually imploding postcolonial South African state’s persecution of Helen Zille shows. “What a meta-narrative of anti-colonial sentiment can render invisible are ways in which people made claims on new possibilities without deploying either anti- or pro-colonial idioms,” Englund writes in his study of colonial-era newspapers in Zambia. “To devote all scholarly attention to the question of how different actors during this period sought to end colonial rule is to succumb to a limiting meta-narrative of anti-colonialism, one that allows no conceptual space between colonial and anti-colonial agendas, and thereby keeps other possibilities inaccessible to the scholarly and moral imagination.” Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BasedCongo Follow Professor Gilley on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BruceDGilley Follow Charlie Kirk on Twitter: https://twitter.com/charliekirk11 #BruceGilley #CharlieKirk #BritishEmpire

Bruce Gilley joins Douglas Murray on this episode to discuss one of the biggest criticisms of the west – Colonialism. From antiquity to modernity, the two give an in-depth examination of the practice. Should Colonialism stay cancelled? Watch full Episode here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0HJV5BE294

For the last hundred years, Western colonialism has had a bad name. Colonialism has virtually disappeared from international affairs, and there is no easier way to discredit a political idea or opponent than to raise the cry of “colonialism.” When South African opposition politician Helen Zille tweeted in 2017 that Singapore’s success was in part attributable to its ability to “build on valuable aspects of colonial heritage,” she was vilified by the press, disciplined by her party, and put under investigation by the country’s human rights commission. It is high time to reevaluate this pejorative meaning. The notion that colonialism is always and everywhere a bad thing needs to be rethought in light of the grave human toll of a century of anti-colonial regimes and policies. The case for Western colonialism is about rethinking the past as well as improving the future. It involves reaffirming the primacy of human lives, universal values, and shared responsibilities—the civilizing mission without scare quotes --that led to improvements in living conditions for most Third World peoples during most episodes of Western colonialism. It also involves learning how to unlock those benefits again. Western and non-Western countries should reclaim the colonial toolkit and language as part of their commitment to effective governance and international order. There are three ways to reclaim colonialism. One is for governments and peoples in developing countries to replicate as far as possible the colonial governance of their pasts—as successful countries like Singapore, Belize, and Botswana did. The “good governance” agenda, which contains too many assumptions about the self-governing capacity of poor countries, should be replaced with the “colonial governance” agenda. A second way is to recolonize some regions. Western countries should be encouraged to hold power in specific governance areas (public finances, say, or criminal justice) in order to jump-start enduring reforms in weak states. Rather than speak in euphemisms about “shared sovereignty” or “neo-trusteeship,” such actions should be called “colonialism” because it would embrace rather than evade the historical record. Thirdly, in some instances, it may be possible to build new Western colonies from scratch. Colonialism can return (either as a governance style or as an extension of Western authority) only with the consent of the colonized. Yet now that the nationalist generation that forced sudden decolonization on hapless populations has passed away, the time may be ripe. Sèbe has documented how the founding figures of Western colonialism in Africa (such as Livingstone in Zambia, Lugard in Nigeria, and de Brazza in Congo) are enjoying a resurgence of official and social respect in those countries now that romanticized pre-colonial and disappointing post-colonial approaches to governance have lost their sheen. As one young man on the streets of Kinshasa asked Van Reybrouck in his seminal 2010 book on the Congo: “How long is this independence of ours going to last anyway? When are the Belgians coming back?” Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BasedCongo #BruceGilley #NeilOliver #Colonialism #GBNews

Famed historian and author of the groundbreaking "The Case for Colonialism" demonstrates that, contary to modern presuppositions, German colonialism from its early roots to the mid-twentieth century was overall a force for good in the world where development was encouraged and native governance flourished. Historian and university professor, Bruce Gilley, delves into the history of German colonialism from its earliest roots through the 20th century, demonstrating that contrary to modern presuppositions, it served as a global force for good—elevating the lives of its subjects and encouraging scientific development while allowing native cultures to flourish within its governance. Buy Book: https://www.amazon.com/Defense-German-Colonialism-Empowered-Communists-ebook/dp/B09MDKS7ZD

Sir Alan Burns was the most prominent defender of the British empire in its final stages. The Last Imperialist: Sir Alan Burns' Epic Defense of the British Empires studies Burns' career and his arguments in defense of European colonialism. Bruce Gilley describes Burns' intellectual and policy battles with opponents of colonialism and his efforts to slow the decolonization process. The Last Imperialist takes readers through Burns' critical roles in World War I, the economic development of British Honduras (contemporary Belize), the forging of the Anglo-American alliance in World War II, and the political development of the Gold Coast (contemporary Ghana). The Last Imperialist closes with an examination of Burns' final contributions to colonial affairs in the 1960s and 1970s, a time when his worst predictions had been vindicated. A revisionist history of European colonialism, The Last Imperialist analyzes anti-colonial arguments in the context of the colonial encounter as seen through the life and works of Sir Alan Burns. Buy book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1684512174 Follow Bruce Gilley: https://twitter.com/brucedgilley Follow Belgian Congo on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BasedCongo

Sir Alan Burns was the most prominent defender of the British empire in its final stages. The Last Imperialist: Sir Alan Burns' Epic Defense of the British Empires studies Burns' career and his arguments in defense of European colonialism. Bruce Gilley describes Burns' intellectual and policy battles with opponents of colonialism and his efforts to slow the decolonization process. The Last Imperialist takes readers through Burns' critical roles in World War I, the economic development of British Honduras (contemporary Belize), the forging of the Anglo-American alliance in World War II, and the political development of the Gold Coast (contemporary Ghana). The Last Imperialist closes with an examination of Burns' final contributions to colonial affairs in the 1960s and 1970s, a time when his worst predictions had been vindicated. A revisionist history of European colonialism, The Last Imperialist analyzes anti-colonial arguments in the context of the colonial encounter as seen through the life and works of Sir Alan Burns. Buy book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1684512174 Follow Bruce Gilley: https://twitter.com/brucedgilley Follow Belgian Congo on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BasedCongo

Famed historian and author of the groundbreaking "The Case for Colonialism" demonstrates that, contary to modern presuppositions, German colonialism from its early roots to the mid-twentieth century was overall a force for good in the world where development was encouraged and native governance flourished. Historian and university professor, Bruce Gilley, delves into the history of German colonialism from its earliest roots through the 20th century, demonstrating that contrary to modern presuppositions, it served as a global force for good—elevating the lives of its subjects and encouraging scientific development while allowing native cultures to flourish within its governance. #BruceGilley #GermanColonialism #Germany Follow Bruce Gilley on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BruceDGilley Follow Belgian Congo on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BasedCongo Buy Book: https://www.simonandschuster.ca/books/In-Defense-of-German-Colonialism/Bruce-Gilley/9781684512379 Video by: Markus Frohnmaier (AfD) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXgspdCvmDw