A Real Holocaust Committed by Jewry: The Annihilation of Canudos

[hermod]

There is the culture of critique... That favors defamation, slander and gossip being used against one's perceived enemies. It's clear with the Germans by now. It may not be as clear with the Belgians. But I wonder what the motive may has been, with the Belgians then.

The British will to take over the huge natural resources of Congo, especially in the rich mining region of Katanga (*), was of course the motive of that campaign of atrocity propaganda against the Congo Free State. Making the world believe that King Leopold II of Belgium was a barbaric ruler unable to administer a negro population as humanely as the experienced British colonial power did, was a very good trick to make Leopold II lose his colony under international pressure. The trick finally proved half successful: King Leopold II lost his colony in 1908, but Britain didn't become the new master of Congo when that happened. Instead, the Belgian state inherited King Leopold's lost colony and the Congo Free State became the Belgian Congo.

Cartoon in Punch (London, UK), 1906.

Katanga Province

Katanga was one of the four large provinces created in the Belgian Congo in 1914.

Katanga's area encompassed 497,000 square kilometres (192,000 sq mi). Farming and ranching are carried out on the Katanga Plateau. The eastern part of the province is considered to be a rich mining region, which supplies cobalt, copper, tin, radium, uranium, and diamonds.

History

Copper mining in Katanga dates back over 1,000 years, and mines in the region were producing standard-sized ingots of copper for international transport by the end of the 10th century CE.[4]

In the 1890s, the province was beleaguered from the south by Cecil Rhodes' Northern Rhodesia, and from the north by the Belgian Congo, the personal possession of King Leopold II of Belgium. Msiri, the King of Katanga, held out against both, but eventually Katanga was subsumed by the Belgian Congo.[5]

After 1900, the Societe Generale de Belgique practically controlled all of the mining in the province through Union Minière du Haut Katanga (UMHK). This included uranium, radium, copper, cobalt, zinc, cadmium, germanium, manganese, silver, gold, and tin.

In 1915, a deposit of pitchblende and other uranium minerals of a higher grade than had ever been found before anywhere in the world and higher than any found since were discovered at Shinkolobwe. The discovery was kept secret by UMHK. After World War I ended a factory was built at Olen; the secrecy was lifted at the end of 1922 with the announcement of the production of the first gram of radium from the pitchblende.[6] By the start of World War II, the mining companies "constituted a state within the Belgian Congo." The Shinkolobwe mine near Jadotville (now Likasi) was at the centre of the Manhattan Project.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katanga_Province

* You're South African (if memory serves me right). No need to tell you what happened with Britain back then when vast amounts of gold and diamonds were found somewhere.

Fact is that collecting accusatory stories and reports and then extracting a diabliography from it, isn't exactly a good historiographic method. And it's especially suspicious, when there are ulterior motives at work. And well, that they are overwhelmingly present in the humanities isn't exactly a secret by now. The pattern is simply to clear by now. Even if those in the humanities don't want to see it. Because that would discredit the field. And their own career prospects does highly depend on the the credibility of their field. Otherwise they'd end up like Astrologers and other charlatans. Credentialism, pushing reputation, while denigrating others is a malpractice that is rife in academia. If somebody critiques this obnoxious behavior, they will portrayed as 'not qualified', regardless what their actual qualifications are or not. And well 1+1=2 regardless, if the person saying this is qualified to do so or not. And well, guess what happens when an academic steps on the toes of his colleagues with public statements. He can count on being put under scrutiniy himself. His dissertation may be looked at, or journal articles or whatever else may be investigated there. Those with advanced degree and working in academia of course do know this and will act accordingly. They will stick to their field of study and avoid commenting on anything else. They know perfectly will, that if they know they will have to be careful what they are saying. I know plenty of examples of this.

Note that they suddenly know it is not a good historiographic method when dealing with what the Palestinians have to say about the Jewish occupation of their homeland and with Black-on-White crimes in Western countries.

[Hektor]

There is the culture of critique... That favors defamation, slander and gossip being used against one's perceived enemies. It's clear with the Germans by now. It may not be as clear with the Belgians. But I wonder what the motive may has been, with the Belgians then.

The British will to take over the huge natural resources of Congo, especially in the rich mining region of Katanga (*), was of course the motive of that campaign of atrocity propaganda against the Congo Free State. Making the world believe that King Leopold II of Belgium was a barbaric ruler unable to administer a negro population as humanely as the experienced British colonial power did, was a very good trick to make Leopold II lose his colony under international pressure. The trick finally proved half successful: King Leopold II lost his colony in 1908, but Britain didn't become the new master of Congo when that happened. Instead, the Belgian state inherited King Leopold's lost colony and the Congo Free State became the Belgian Congo.
.....

There would be British examples similar to Congo. But the Brits were certainly more skilled in their approach to administer a colony. The previous conditions in what became colonies need also to be considered and they weren't exactly rosy. But this nowadays completely ignored in the discourse. It's painted in a way that people think that 'the natives' (who often were recent immigrants themselves) were living in a state of nature that was almost paradise. It's the idea of the 'noble savage' that comes through again. But that was not the case.

Live was poor, nasty, brutish, and short for most people then. Famine, tribal wars, mass disease and inner conflicts were the norm. Periodically this was better, but those were shorter periods. There were also huge open spaces that weren't used. Most people were subsistence farmers with the women engaging in agriculture, while the men looked after cattle, the chase and mostly given to feasting with others. Mines and plantations set up by Europeans were offering opportunities of employment that allowed more people to survive. Why did 'natives' work for White people? Because they were treated better by them than by their own elites and received wages that enable them to procure goods.

[hermod]

There would be British examples similar to Congo. But the Brits were certainly more skilled in their approach to administer a colony.

To administer a colony ? Or to sell their own narratives through their own "news agencies" and "philanthropic foundations" ?

Great publicists for sure !!

[Hektor]

There would be British examples similar to Congo. But the Brits were certainly more skilled in their approach to administer a colony.

To administer a colony ? Or to sell their own narratives through their own "news agencies" and "philanthropic foundations" ?

Great publicists for sure !!

Both. The Brits have their way to 'keep control' over the colony. Lots of it is intelligence work. Subverting those of the subjects that could mean trouble for them. After all... They are the longest in the business. Ireland being their first colony and also one that was badly administered initially.

And yes, narrative creation is another thing they are good at. South Africa or parts thereof were a former British colony. And there are still Brits in South Africa today. Discussed this with a manufacturer here... The behavior of Brits in business and also social settings. They have a way to talk in ways that can be understood in more than one way. Also they can cause a conflict and make it look as if somebody else is the problem... Usually getting somebody to become angry, who then looks like the 'aggressor' in the conflict. While actually that person was the more benevolent faction that just found out how duplicitous his British friend was.

[hermod]

Both. The Brits have their way to 'keep control' over the colony. Lots of it is intelligence work. Subverting those of the subjects that could mean trouble for them. After all... They are the longest in the business. Ireland being their first colony and also one that was badly administered initially.

They were also "specialists in lying, having lied all over the world --- in India, China, America, South Africa --- for a hundred and fifty years," as an American writer said 85 years ago about the British campaign of anti-German atrocity propaganda during World War One.

https://postimg.cc/Xrh1423J

With such a reputation, no need to ask why the British propagandists of WWII needed to make a big propaganda show with horrific scenes of epidemic devastation in 1945.

https://postimg.cc/vxBcXGVF