Into Darkest Africa

David Adams, American Renaissance, March 14, 2014

The untold story of Henry Morton Stanley.

Tim Jeal, Stanley: The Impossible Life of Africa’s Greatest Explorer, Faber and Faber, 2007, 570 pp, £25.00.

Along with Richard Burton, John Speke, Samuel Baker, and David Livingstone, Henry Morton Stanley was one of the greatest Victorian explorers of Africa. He was the youngest of this group, and it was he who finally assembled the scattered and uncertain knowledge of central Africa into a coherent geography. He explored the great lakes of the region and the sources of the Nile, was the first to trace the Congo river from the continent’s interior all the way to the sea, and helped open Africa for trade with Europe.

Stanley

Stanley’s reputation was controversial even in his lifetime, and 1990s biographies by Frank McLynn and John Bierman savaged him. He was accused—and still is—of brutality, casual killing, and duping 300 Congo tribal chiefs into handing over their land. He was portrayed as an accomplice of Leopold II’s ruthless exploitation of the Congo, was blamed for abuses committed by some of his officers in the Emin Pasha Relief Expedition, and was described as motivated by a “volcanic rage against the world.” Some even claimed he was a closet homosexual with a sham marriage. In short, Stanley came to be seen as embodying the worst aspects of the Victorian era and European imperialism.

It turns out that scholars have erred. His descendants made Stanley’s personal papers inaccessible until 2002, and they tell a different story. This major biography by Tim Jeal, the first to benefit from access to these papers, is a welcome correction. The Stanley he uncovers is different both from those of earlier biographies, and from that of Stanley’s own puffed-up accounts of his expeditions.

This is not a hagiography. Mr. Jeal acknowledges both great virtues and great faults, but he puts put these in context, thereby illuminating Stanley’s actions and motivations, which Mr. Jeal traces to his grim early life.

Henry Morton Stanley was born John Rowlands, in Denbigh, North Wales, on January 18th, 1841. He was the illegitimate child of an unknown father—legend has it that it was James Vaughan Horne, a Denbigh solicitor—and a promiscuous mother, Elizabeth Parry, who would later marry and run two public houses. Elizabeth was unwilling to look after him—though she had cared for an older illegitimate son—and John fell to his putative grandfather, John Rowlands, Jr., a local farmer. He died when John was five, and the boy’s uncles decided to pay a poor local family to look after him. They later stopped paying for his upkeep—perhaps hoping  the family had grown fond enough to keep him—but the family sent the boy, then eight, to the St Asaph Workhouse.

Victorian workhouses were harsh and loveless places, more brutal even than Charles Dickens’s depiction in Oliver Twist, published some ten years earlier. They were a last resort that attached the stigma of ignoble origins to all who ended up in them. Two years after coming to the workhouse, John managed to escape to his uncle’s house, but, after a happy afternoon under his aunt’s care, was ordered back to St Asaph the following morning.

John finally left the workhouse in 1856 at age 15, and was kept by a cousin on his mother’s side, Moses Owen, a school headmaster who tutored him in mathematics and literature. Owen’s mother, however, thought that her son’s marriage prospects would be spoilt by “harbouring his feckless aunt’s bastard son.” John was first sent to labor on a farm but was then turned over to yet another uncle, this one in Liverpool. This man had been reduced to manual labor, however, and could not keep the young man, who, after a period of tramping, found work as a butcher.

One day, when he was delivering meat to an American packet ship, the captain offered him five dollars a month and a new outfit if he would sign on as cabin boy. This was not a genuine offer: Boys like him received beastly treatment at sea, with the expectation that they would desert at the first port of call, allowing the captain to pocket their wages. John fell into this trap and left the ship in New Orleans seven weeks later.

In America, John began a process of reinvention in an effort to distance himself from his painful early life. He called himself Henry Stanley, later claiming he took the name in honor of a wealthy American businessman who had adopted him. He maintained this fiction to the end of his life, even though he later came under public scrutiny and his mother—who suddenly developed an interest in her son after he became famous—was talking carelessly to the press. On his last trip to America, he even scoured New Orleans graveyards looking for an heirless Henry Stanley he could claim was his stepfather.

When the Civil War broke out, Stanley enlisted in the Confederate Army but was captured at the Battle of Shiloh. He had a choice of prison or enlistment in the Union Army, and spent time in an army hospital. However, he had friends in the South, did not want to fight the Confederacy, and decided to desert. In 1864, Stanley then enlisted in the US Navy, serving as record keeper aboard the Minnesota. He was able to start a career as a freelance journalist, but after seven months he again deserted, in hope of finding adventure.

Stanley had long been fascinated by David Livingstone’s Missionary Travels. After the war, he and a friend scraped together a little money from various jobs to fund an expedition to the Ottoman Empire. In Turkey, they were beaten, robbed of everything they had, and one member of their group was raped at knifepoint. There was a trial, during which Stanley managed to win the group’s freedom and even restitution for stolen equipment.

In 1867, Colonel Samuel Forster Tappan recruited Stanley to report on the work of the Indian Peace Commission, a body established by the US government to make peace with the Plains Indians. Stanley’s vivid prose was well received, and he was not long after hired as a foreign correspondent by James Gordon Bennett, proprietor and founder of the New York Herald.

Graffiti Stanley left on the Gate of All Lands at Persepolis, Iran.

Graffiti Stanley left on the Gate of All Lands at Persepolis, Iran.

It was as a reporter for the Herald that Stanley undertook the expedition to find David Livingstone. The famous missionary was known to have been in the Congo since 1866, but little had been heard from him, and at one point he had been presumed dead. In his first book, How I Found Livingstone, Stanley claimed that the New York Herald’s Bennett instructed him to go on the expedition and offered him unlimited funds for this purpose. In fact, it was Stanley’s idea. He had to lobby for it, and the funding was adequate but not munificent. Stanley tried to impress readers by inflating the figures, as he would do in other books.

Stanley’s 700-mile expedition was, however, genuinely heroic. During his eight-month journey, he caught malaria; was caught up in a local war; fought starvation, theft, and desertions; and had to negotiate swamps, deserts, jungle, and many tribes—some hostile. On November 10, 1871, Stanley found Livingstone in the town of Ujiji, now part of Tanzania, but Stanley’s description of their meeting is fiction. He never said “Dr. Livingstone, I presume?” He invented the phrase later to sound dignified, but even Victorians ridiculed it as pompous.

"Dr.

How I found Livingstone, illustrated in 1876.

Livingstone had been described to Stanley as an irascible misanthrope, and Stanley spent the entire journey worrying that the older explorer would get wind of the attempt to find him, and move off to another region. In fact, Livingstone was amiable, generous, and unpretentious. He had been a legend in Stanley’s eyes, and Mr. Jeal writes that the relationship between the two became like that of father and son.

The two spent four months together exploring the region, and Stanley would always remain loyal to the missionary’s memory, a friend to his family, and champion of his mission to end the slave trade in equatorial Africa and civilize the natives with Christianity. It was his experience with the older man that inspired Stanley to become an explorer. The Livingstone expedition made Stanley famous, but he also made enemies by criticizing the British consul at Zanzibar for not properly supplying Livingstone.

Livingstone-Stanley monument engraving near Bujumbura city, in Burundi.

Livingstone-Stanley monument near Bujumbura city, Burundi.

In 1874,  Stanley was commissioned by the New York Herald, along with the Daily Telegraph, to solve the geographical puzzles Livingstone had left unsolved. This was a successful—though horrific—expedition that lasted 999 days, and cost 114 lives; Stanley was the only white man to survive. The expedition established the geography of the lake region and traced the Congo all the way to the sea.

Stanley’s book on the trip, Through the Dark Continent, included an account of a conflict in which a number of natives were killed at Bumbireh. Stanley’s enemies in the British establishment later used the account to treat him as a monster and even launch a formal inquiry. The controversy resulted partly from exaggeration—Stanley’s desire to cater to a bloodthirsty audience and to cultivate a public persona as the hard man of the jungle—but it prompted much pontificating in the press by self-righteous arm-chair adventurers.

The controversy helped sell Stanley’s book, but also gave him a reputation for brutality. This left him with only one possible sponsor for his next Africa expedition: King Leopold II of Belgium.

Stanley had by this time been witness to the evils of the central African slave trade, and hoped his work for the Belgian king would help eradicate it. Stanley’s books and Mr. Jeal’s biography clearly show that the slave trade in the African interior was run not by Europeans but by Arab-Swahili traders, with the cooperation of various African kingdoms. Arabs had been in Africa since the 9th century, and by the early 1870s were operating at least as far as Unyanyembe in modern Tanzania. Many of the tribes Stanley encountered had never seen Europeans, but were well acquainted with the Arabs, who also ran a hugely profitable ivory trade.

In his Congo River expedition, Stanley had seen villages razed and depopulated by slave raids, and tribes broken by the theft or sale of their relatives. Like Livingstone, he wanted to do “something wonderful” for the Congo. He and many others thought the way to break the slave trade was to open Africa to the world, which would provide industrialized nations with raw materials and new markets. It would also destroy the market for slaves, since by trading with Europe, Africans would be able to buy goods they wanted—typically cloth, beads, and brass wire—without selling each other.

Leopold, on the other hand, wanted a colony, and was interested in the Congo because of its natural riches. Leopold played on Stanley’s idealism, and presented the project of building trading stations along the Congo River as a philanthropic mission. Ostensibly, the idea was to improve conditions in the region through Christianity and civilization, but what Leopold sought was a legal basis to acquire a personal fiefdom.

Stanley was to sign treaties with local chiefs to obtain the rights to build the stations on their land. He sought merely tenancy agreements, whereas Leopold wanted outright sovereignty. Mr. Jeal tells us that the treaties Stanley signed with the chiefs were later destroyed and replaced by new ones, granting sovereignty in legal language contrived to fool the illiterate chiefs. Mr. Jeal also reports that Leopold had editorial control over Stanley’s book on the expedition, and that the treaty printed in The Congo and the Founding of its Free State was one of the latter ones—not a treaty Stanley did or would have signed.

Thus, it was Stanley who was duped by Leopold, not the chiefs duped by Stanley. Stanley was later angered by the reported abuses of Belgian officials in the Congo Free State, but Mr. Jeal thinks Stanley was unwilling to believe the extent of the treachery, and rationalized the deception as perhaps necessary in order to achieve humanitarian goals.

Stanley’s last expedition, the Emin Pasha relief effort, also damaged his reputation. The aim was to rescue Emin Pasha (Eduard Schnitzer), a Jewish German doctor from Silesia who had been named governor of Equatoria, an Egyptian province in the extreme south of the Sudan. When the Mahdists captured Khartoum in 1885 and killed General Charles Gordon, the Anglo-Egyptian administration of the Sudan collapsed, leaving Equatoria cut off.

The British public came to see the pasha as a second General Gordon, and there was widespread support for a rescue mission. Ordinarily, Stanley chose his expedition members personally. He generally preferred black men, having found whites too attached to their luxuries and prone to complain. The only whites he ever chose were tough men with backgrounds like his own. On this occasion, however, the expedition was organized by William Mackinnon, a Scottish philanthropist and businessman with experience in colonial ventures, who raised money for the effort. The key personnel came mostly from the gentleman and officer classes. Stanley was still working for Leopold, however, so a compromise was needed in order for the king to let him go: Stanley would take a longer route along the Congo River to secure more land, but the king would provide Free State steamers for transportation.

The Emin Pasha relief expedition was perhaps even more difficult than Stanley’s earlier efforts. After his party survived extreme danger, disease, famine, and hostile (sometimes cannibal) tribes, it turned out that of the promised steamers, only one was in full working order, and they were insufficient to carry the men and equipment to Equatoria. Stanley decided to split the expedition into a Rear Column, which would remain encamped at Yambuya, and an Advance Column, which he would lead in an attempt to reach Emin Pasha. The two columns were to rejoin later.

After immense difficulties, particularly in the nearly impenetrable Ituri forest, where the men were attacked by pygmies with poison arrows, Stanley reached his objective, though it was an anti-climax. Emin Pasha had misrepresented the situation entirely, and, far from being a man fighting the enemy bravely against incredible odds, he was barely in command. He was happy to get supplies, but was reluctant to be relieved, and returned to the coast only after much indecision.

The Rear Column, meanwhile, had fallen worryingly silent. Returning to the site 16 months later, Stanley discovered a single European in charge of what remained of the camp. The majority of the porters had died of starvation or disease; bodies lay unburied; filth was everywhere, and the survivors were sickly skeletons. Stanley was able to reconstruct events and learned that Edmund Barttelot, the officer he had left in charge, had completely lost his mind a year earlier, gone on a rampage of brutality, and been shot in a dispute. Also, the big-game hunter James Sligo Jameson had apparently bought a young female slave, given her to cannibals, and sketched the scene as she was slaughtered and eaten.

Upon returning to civilization, Stanley had the difficult task of explaining this debacle. Mr. Jeal argues that in his book about the expedition, In Darkest Africa, Stanley muted his criticism of Barttelot and Jameson since he, as the leader, would have been blamed for staffing the expedition with moral idiots. All the same, Barttelot’s and Jameson’s families attacked Stanley for defaming the men. Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness was reportedly inspired by the principal figures of the Rear Column.

Critics also contrasted Stanley with Emin Pasha, who they made out to be a benevolent scholar. This, too, was distortion: The pasha condoned brutality to the extent that even the Manyama cannibals would not sell slaves to him. Again, Stanley was damned if he told the truth, damned if he didn’t. He would bear on his conscience for the rest of his life the 500 lives lost on a pointless expedition.

Stanley’s return to London marked the beginning of the final period in his life. The artist Dorothy Tennant set her cap for him, and they were married in 1890. He loved her deeply but in time found himself harried by her possessiveness, her interest in politics, and their different natures. Perhaps most frustrating was Dorothy’s insistence that he run for office.

Mr. Jeal explains that because Stanley was denied a proper home life as a child he did not want to disrupt his marriage by opposing his much younger and strong-willed wife. He therefore let himself be drafted into running for a seat in Parliament in 1892 as a Liberal Unionist. Stanley detested politics and found the process of canvassing for votes utterly demeaning. He therefore refused to campaign, in the secret hope of losing. He did manage to lose his first election but was elected in 1895, and became MP for Lambeth North. He held this post until 1900, and was relieved when his “sentence” was finally over.

By the 1890s, Stanley was only in his 50s but in poor health; the ravages of his expeditions made him look 15 years older. He bought a mansion in Pirbright, Surrey, where he found peace away from his wife, and in the company of an adopted son, Denzil, who came from his Welsh relatives. He had no children of his own.

Stanley died in 1904. Although he had been knighted in 1899, he was denied burial next to Livingstone at Westminster Abbey because he remained controversial. He was buried instead at St Michael’s Church, in Pirbright. The granite gravestone bears the inscription, “Henry Morton Stanley, Bula Matari, 1841 – 1904, Africa.” “Bula Matari,” a nickname he acquired in Africa, means “breaker of rocks” in the Kongo language. His wife called him by that name and it appears on the statue of Stanley unveiled in 2011 in front of the public library in Denbigh, Wales, where he was born.

Mr. Jeal writes in his afterword that when Dorothy edited Stanley’s unfinished autobiography—written to perpetuate the fictions about his early life—she tried to protect his memory by issuing denials, misdirecting the press, and restricting access to his personal papers. Denzil continued this practice.

Clearly, Mr. Jeal means to rehabilitate the great explorer, and believes that for Stanley the truth is the best defense. He cultivated a tough exterior; but we learn that he was charming, amiable, and easy-going when he was able to relax in private. His rough-hewn persona was a necessary consequence of his early life, in an era that was more aggressively masculine than our post-feminist times.

What of his reputation for brutality? He dealt forcefully with deserters, thieves, and liars, and there were many on his expeditions. However, he tried to avoid conflict with the tribes he encountered by offering them gifts and friendship. When he used deadly force it was when he faced an imminent threat to life. It is true that he was an instrument of Leopold’s ignoble designs, but he was not a knowing instrument. Besides the Faustian urge of his race, his motives while in the king’s employ were largely humanitarian, and he believed the king’s were as well.

In How I Found Livingstone, Stanley writes that as he was making his way back to the East Coast toward towards the end of the expedition, he was shocked to learn that slavers were already using the routes he had pioneered. Once they realized someone had found a way they exploited it.

There was more tragedy: The desire to break the slave trade and to civilize peoples who might have been better off left alone led to the horrors of the Congo Free State, and the Emin Pasha expedition introduced deadly new diseases to the area. The road to hell was truly paved with good intentions. Mr. Jeal nevertheless offers historical context and a dose of realism to the question of post-colonial guilt:

The Victorians were hooked on needing to feel virtuous and, in our own way, we are too. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that colonialism had some disastrous consequences . . . . So we virtuously condemn those who did not see these things coming many decades before they actually came to pass. And yet we forget that between the late 1880s and 1910s, the various colonial administrations brought to an end large-scale enslavement of Africans; and subsequently, in British and French territories at least, maintained over much of the continent relatively incorrupt government under the rule of law. We also fail to ask ourselves what would have happened if the Arab-Swahili had remained unopposed throughout Africa. Darfur provides a clue.

Mr. Jeal also raises the question of whether equatorial Africa really needed European-style civilization:

Men like Mackinnon and Stanley believed in the moral worth of the new industrial society, having seen for themselves the outlawing of child labour, the advent of compulsory state education, and the way in which an increase in national wealth had brought prosperity to far more people than had once seemed possible. They had not seen European nations fight two bloody world wars, nor dreamed of anything so terrible as the gas chambers, or the dropping of the atom bomb, nor suspected that technological advances might one day threaten the planet. . . . Stanley . . . believed he was bringing numerous advantages to the Africans. So European intervention in Africa seemed wholly desirable.

Natives often expressed admiration at the superiority of the white man, and Stanley felt the need to comport himself with the dignity of someone representing his race. In How I Found Livingstone, he writes of the Manyara people who had never encountered Europeans, but who had dealt with Arabs. They marveled at Stanley’s appearance, clothing, and equipment. After a morning with the chief and his men, the chief said at parting, “Oh . . . these white men know everything, the Arabs are dirt compared to them!”

Not surprisingly, Jeal’s Stanley met with opposition from predictable sources: The London Review of Books published a scathing review, while a Professor Makau Mutua reviewed it for Human Rights Quarterly under the title, “An Apology for a Pathological Brute.” This did not prevent accolades: winner of the 2007 National Book Critics Circle Award for biography; named one of the 100 Notable Books of 2007 by the New York Times Book Review; silver medal winner of the 2008 Independent Publisher Book Award for biography, and many other awards. Even the notoriously left-leaning Guardian published a fair and open-minded review.

Perhaps there is hope for a reassessment of the colonial period.

Topics: ,

Share This

David Adams
Mr. Adams lives in part of what was once the British Empire.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Geo1metric

    I am impressed by Stanley’s grit in overcoming a background that would have broken a lesser man. His accomplishments should be an inspiration to his race.

    The book will also reinforce some of the negatives about sub-Saharan Africa most on this site are well aware of.

    It should also put to rest some of the myths about the black slave trade and perhaps shine some light into the “heart of darkness.”

    • joesolargenius

      Frank Yerby an African American Author who wrote many books of fiction about the era of slavery in America and tried to shed light on the fact that it was the African Chiefs who made an industry of slavery , using it as a means of culling the undesirables or those whom were threats to the kingdom .

  • gemjunior

    The only thing that Africans had to export were slaves and most of them went to Arab countries. Nobody ever seems to think that is a problem. What do you have other than a few painted Zulu shields, artistic masks, zebra skins, and human beings? Nothing, because your powers of invention are nil. I’m tired of hearing about Africa, but I think a man like Stanley was amazing to have made his way through it and lived.

    • Bossman

      Those that went to the Arab countries were usually female and “pretty.” A lot of the harems of the Middle East had a fair share of them.

    • Nancy Thomas

      Not only that most went to Arab countries…most that headed this way went to the West Indies and Brazil, and NOT here to the USA. We got only 3%, around 500 thousand total, a tiny percentage of the total number of slaves sold by their African brothers. And yet we have to suffer under a hostile media that paints us as “hateful racist rednecks who murder black children for no reason.”

  • Gereng

    Having lived and worked in Liberia, Uganda and Somalia and traveled in Kenya, I have an inkling of what Africa and its people must have been like when Stanley was exploring. This new biography has the sound of an unbiased account. I am deeply impressed by Stanley’s relatively benevolent treatment of Africans. Even today their behavior is violent and irrational and difficult to predict.

  • Einsatzgrenadier

    The standard accusations against King Leopold II are both wrong and unfair. Leopold was an enlightened humanitarian who introduced civilization to the benighted Congo. He built schools and hospitals all across the territory and converted the savages to Christianity. The king brought law and order to the region by organizing the Congo’s first police force. Leopold put the negroes to work and transformed the Congo, a lush tropical jungle filled with primitive, fetish-worshiping cannibals, into an economically productive region.

    So a few negroes died, but so what? Arab rule in the Congo would have resulted in the total physical extermination of the negro race, at least in that region of the continent. The Belgian Congo under Leopold was a paradise compared to the modern Congo, which is a lawless hell on earth. Besides, Leopold’s rule was more adapted to the negroid temperament because it was informed by a realistic appraisal of negroid capabilities, which are quite limited to say the least.

    • Zimriel

      You are, I think, conflating Leopold’s “free state” (slave state) with the truly Belgian and more enlightened colony that followed it. Congo needed more Belgium, less greedy tyrants on the make (of either skin tone).

    • Kronolog

      A few? His victims numbered in the millions.

      • Carlo Latini

        That’s a few.

        • Michael Samuel

          13 Million in the first 20 yrs of Belgian rule, that’s not a “few” even the recent Congo wars has not reach that level……yet, another example of Stalin before Stalin almost a template for what was to come in Europe an elsewhere.

          • Bantu_Education

            Been reading Stalinist apologist Adam Hochshild’s anti-white propaganda have we???

        • Nicholas I

          After 6,000,000 who keeps count?

    • Anon

      And how man white men, women and children have been raped, robbed, murdered and beaten by blacks as they gained access to the white western world through the “development” of Africa through various means. Can’t you see that seeing the issue solely through the lens of what is good for blacks is…..sick?
      Whatever they are, both in the past and today, is very much their own business. Actually, it’s worse than that. It is EVIL to aid and abet an EVIL person, society and most of all, race. What Leopold did was EVIL…anti-life and treasonous in the extreme to his race because of the benefit he brought to an incorrigibly EVIL alien species that exists to harm us.
      What he essentially did was give over our children to the “fetish worshipping cannibals” because he felt sorry for them.
      One day, when white people finally “get it”, even suggesting such a thing will lead to a swift trip to the guillotine. If blacks are allowed to live at all, it will be walled off in high security, “no go” areas. For exactly these reasons.

  • David Ashton

    Interesting because the current PC spin is that Stanley was a close enthusiastic collaborator with the Belgian King in the enslavement, torture & murder of black families.

    • Oil Can Harry

      Liberal logic: because Stanley, Richard Burton, John Speke, etc. explored Africa they’re responsible for any human rights abuses perpetrated by European gov’ts decades later.

      Similarly, their infantile minds blame Christopher Columbus for anything bad that happened to American Indians after 1492.

  • italian guy

    All of them should have stayed the hell away from Sub-Saharan Africa…

    • Sick of it

      If they had, the Afrikaners would be doing quite well, with an entire continent at their beck and call.

  • Martel

    Quite a few reviews lately, I like it.

  • ray

    “Perhaps there is hope for a reassessment of the colonial period.”

    Not a chance. There’s far too much money, power, position, and psychological smugness to be gained from keeping the Evil White Male in his place. And his place is constantly apologizing to Women, Persons of Color, Homosexuals, and everybody else, for his existence as The Oppressor. And reimbursing them for his collective sins.

    This was an excellent piece on Stanley, stripping away the revisionist-history of the scammers, the users, and the rest of the Politically Korreckt Krowd.

    “He dealt forcefully with deserters, thieves, and liars, and there were many on his expeditions.”
    Yep. And now they’d criminalize (and probably cage) him for acting like a righteous man. They’d reissure “Roots” with a special scene about that brute, Stanley, and how he held down the africans and the women. The rotten little oppressor. Just look at all the White Male Privilege in his life.

    • Martel

      Even the most powerful tend to overplay their hand if you wait long enough, they lie, cheat and abuse until their behavior can no longer be justified. We will definitely see changes.

  • Albert

    Thank you for a fascinating read.

  • Negroid Plague

    All whites should have kept their asses OUT of Africa and kept the ni%%ers IN

  • DudeWheresMyCountry?

    Black people really don’t want to know anything about Africa and what it was and is about. They know it is thoroughly primitive and like to pretend our accomplishments are theirs instead of facing the truth. We allow this in Amerika 2.0. they might pretend to love Africa but nothing could be further from the truth, they are ashamed of what they are in their natural state.

  • Steven Barr

    If I’m honest I wish there had never been a British Empire. I’m not ashamed of what we accomplished but it has come back to haunt us in a terrible way through mass immigration.

    • TheAntidote

      I understand what you’re saying, “the British Empire has come home to roost,” but what of the other side of the coin? All these wogs, ragheads and primitive savages wanted independence and they wanted to re-name all the real estate; surely the English deserve self determination and a place of their own as well—don’t they?
      They all clamored for Brits Out!, now it’s time for the British to say, “immigrants out, we want our own language, culture, and country!”

  • Anon

    he wanted to do “something wonderful” for the Congo. He and many others thought the way to break the slave trade was to open Africa to the world
    And here it is in black and white. The problem that comes with white altruism and racial ethnocentrism. Surely, this man saw, first hand, the universal evil, depravity and wickedness of the black man. More to the point, that there is a gigantic hole in them where white people have humanity, goodness, nobility and basic decency. Simply talking to these people should have been enough to reveal these things as no black language even has words for these things….and still do not, to this day.
    These things should have been…..stark…to such a person. Instead, all he could see was the wickedness done by his own and assumed whatever was wrong with blacks was due to that treatment. It literally never occurred to him that the situation was the exact opposite. Whites and the degenerate descendants of Christian whites (muslims and arabs) very much assumed that since, all blacks treat each other as slaves, victims etc., that it was, first, OK to treat them that way….and later to treat others like that.
    Where was Stanley’s concern for fellow whites…..the mistreatment of which he has first hand experience?
    What you see here is the precursor to the main problem in the world today….negro worship. An abandonment of Christianity with its focus on honing the humanity of white people and upraising civilization, via the obvious spark of divinity in all white people, to focus on the foul, incorrigibly evil black man, making excuses for what he does, taking responsibility for what he is (and what he can never be….human), and most of all, blaming the white race for the incredible differences between us and demanding we sacrifice that in order to lay down in the abattoir blacks would make of the world if given the power and opportunity. Curiously unmentioned is the obvious corruption, degradation and evil that resulted from even casual contact with the black man. All this man was concerned about was opening the door wide for him in the idiotic hope that our way would somehow over-ride his.
    Can any deny that the exact opposite is the result? It would have been far better for him to have stayed home and simply accepted his station in life.

  • Sick of it

    “Oh . . . these white men know everything, the Arabs are dirt compared to them!”

    I’ve already got a favorite quote.

  • PesachPatriot

    Interesting article,the book looks like a pretty good read too….I wonder what Mr. Livingstone would write if he saw darkest urban america today….places like jacksonville, atlanta, birmingham,new orleans,detroit,memphis,chicago,newark, baltimore and camden…

  • ViktorNN

    The glimpses of the African/Arab slave trade that one gets in this review are fascinating to me.

    White people – especially here in America – simply have very little idea exactly how widespread the practice was before, during, and after the period of use of slaves by European countries in colonizing the New World.

    It seems to me that some honest, objective historical study of the truth of the African/Arab slave trade would be very useful to poke holes in the politically correct left’s version of world history which it has been selling. Do such studies exist? If not, I hope some young scholars out there consider such a project.

  • JohnEngelman

    European colonialism in Africa ended centuries too soon. When empires impose civilization on barbarians they serve useful functions. It takes many generations to civilize barbarians. Those with civilized inclinations need to have descendants. Those with criminal inclinations need to be prevented from reproducing.

    • MikeofAges

      My estimation is that the “Race for Africa” led straight to World War I (the Great War to the Europeans). Colonizing Asia had no such consequences. The Asians, South and East, were more advanced culturally at least, and each region had known many masters during its history. The European was simply one more to eventually be replaced by yet another, exotic only because he was not of their kind.

      Africa was a disaster for the European. We should get out of there and let the Indians and the Chinese have their go it. If we need raw materials, we can pay for them. We do anyway these days. Or better yet, find our own sources in our own lands. I don’t think we’ve looked hard enough quite yet. And I don’t think the public possesses full information about what we really have.

  • Northerner

    The Chinese don’t treat Africans any worse than Europeans did. Real work is now getting done. The Sino-African relationship is a more functional one simply because it doesn’t carry any historic colonial baggage.

    • Brakedust

      Hah. Just look at the despoliation of China. Can anyone believe that Chinese habits would be better in Africa than in their own land? Nah.

      • Northerner

        This period of China’s development is the modern equivalent of Britain’s Industrial Revolution. Things got worse before they got better, and I don’t think we should be making any judgements right now.

        As for Chinese operations in Africa, there’s probably some degree of monitoring from African authorities. I doubt they’re 100% allowed to whatever they want.

    • MikeofAges

      Two things I have heard about the Chinese in Africa. They pay top price for everything, and they live in enclaves physically isolated from the indigenous population.

      The Indian, I believe, just blend in. Because they seem meek and quirky and are slow paced, and they provide the necessary business infrastructure, they are ignored, not regarded so much of an intrusion.

      Could be wrong in some significant way. But what I have heard on this forum.

      • HamletsGhost

        Indians formed the commercial class throughout British Africa, including South Africa. They’re widely despised and resented by the natives for their economic success. Uganda expelled them en masse in 1971.

        • MikeofAges

          Africa is a big place, and the modern era of external intrusion has lasted a long time already. The Idi Amin era in Uganda began early in 1971. Myself, I wouldn’t generalize based one event. Or even several. I doubt Indians are loved by the natives, but they might be well tolerated in most instances. A friends of mine who was raised partially within Commonwealth countries, though never in India or Africa, expressed the view that the Africans regard the Indians as not quite white and European and therefore accept them as a necessary part of the commercial infrastructure.

          The Ugandan expulsion evidently took place in 1972. All Asians, except essential professionals, were expelled. The total number was about 80,000. All according to Wikipedia.

  • IstvanIN

    The huge difference is we don’t protect our borders. There is no reason to allow legal Hispanic immigration and certainly none to allow illegals. Simply having a sensible immigration policy protecting our borders and severely punishing illegals would end most of our race problems despite the border with Mexico.

    The Negro problem could have been easily contained, even with them inside our borders. Our elites chose to allow them run amuck.

  • Bossman

    I did see that movie. The whole thing was spoiled for me when both of those characters kissed each other on the lips suggesting that they were homosexuals.

    • TheShallows_NicholasCarr

      And? When was the last time you were robbed or otherwise attacked by homosexuals?

      • Nicholas I

        What planet are you on? Queers attack normal people, and each other, all the time.

  • A very fine review.

  • Ahnenerbe

    Too bad all the negros didn’t all die from a contagious European disease

  • jambi19

    Don’t believe they lie. The USA has hundreds of military bases throughout the world. 14 aircraft carriers. The USA landed on the moon. It can guard and defend the border preventing illegal immigration. It can be done. Think about it. We did it 1845 we can do it in 2014.

  • dd121

    The native African, wherever he is found, continues to prove difficult to civilize and educate.

  • Michael Samuel

    No not really, we cannot stand the hate of the old world just like some Americans cannot stand the class structure of Europe their former ancestral home countries.

  • Marcus Garvey

    LOL this website is probably the second most racist website i have ever encountered. Bested only by stormfront.

    • WR_the_realist

      It’s not our fault that the truth is “racist”.

      • Marcus Garvey

        It is your fault that you want to eradicate a race of ppl and truly believe that melanin makes one inferior to the other. Racist.

        • WR_the_realist

          I don’t want to eradicate any race. But plenty of people of other races want to eradicate us. And, no, having more melanin doesn’t make a person inferior. It’s not the skin color of blacks that causes the problems. It’s the other traits. A neighborhood occupied entirely by albino blacks would have the same poor schools and high crime that other black neighborhoods do.

          • Marcus Garvey

            So you agree that its the genetics? I hope your wife cheats on you with a black man. Because if we are going by genetics your penis is probably the size of a 12 year old’s

        • Martel

          What is a racist?
          I used to hear its racist to make jokes about watermelons, to arrest blacks when they carry weed because somewhere else a white guy isn’t getting arrested, and to ask black voters to present ID at the voting booth. The democrats fought tooth and nail against the “racism” of a black male forced to carry an ID when he goes to vote.

          Its confusing. In all seriousness, racial categories have proven to be valid, but “racism” is clearly an invalid term.There is a reason why blacks perform poorly academically across the world. There is a reason the darkest Mexicans tend to be the poorest, that Afro-Brazilians, Afro-Americans, and “Afro-Europeans”Americans score low on educational attainment and occupational success. I blame these issues on Mother Nature because i subscribe to evolution. Mommy gave blacks more testosterone then Asians, but lower intelligence. This is why Asians who enter the USA are much more successful then Blacks on all levels despite an initial language barrier(even greater then Ebonics, gnom sayin’), on the other hand, blacks are more impulsive and physically strong then Asians, this is why quite a few Asians have felt the brunt of Black frustrations.

          Its humorous that your name is Marcus Garvey and you are complaining about “racism” though, nice touch if you are not serious.

          • Marcus Garvey

            LOL all bow to the far superior white man! For he has no melanin in his skin!! At least we know why your women want us. Your small penises are no match for mandingo warrior dick. Your women literally fall at our feet.

          • Martel

            This is your own conclusion, I never say whites are superior because such statements are subjective. Your reaction may indicate an inferiority complex. There are indeed quite a few women, not that many according to statistics, who produce mixed children, who have a higher risk of depression, medical issues, and general deviant behaviour. Statistics also show white women in a relation with black males tend to be less happy.

            The reason these particular women like black men is because of their confidence, while white men, due to the decade old assault on their identity, have lost a great deal of confidence. This is something which will be corrected over the years by men like me and my brethren who have all converted to ethnic nationalism.

            I think a greater conclusion is that few black men are attracted to black women, because they appear quite manly. The most celebrated males in terms of appearance are still the likes of Matthew Mcconaughey and the more boyish Ryan Gosling. In my country, statistics also show women are especially happy with their sex-life, I could quote some other facts but I don’t want to speak in vulgar terms.

            Class is a “social construct”. A European social construct, which your ilk finds difficult to master,obviously.

          • Marcus Garvey

            I love how you truly believe in your racism. The only “manly” black women are the stereotypes the media loves to show. And they are only “manly” because racism has been engrained in the subconscious to think that white = fair/femenin black = rough/masculine. Which is the reason why black men are always looked to to be the most manliest of all men. And all your statistics of unhappy white women with black men and sad mixed babies I’m sure you pulled out of your @ss. Or got from some fellow racist website. Probably this one.

          • Martel

            I’m not sure what racism is according to you, you just claimed white males are physically inferior. You seem to be utterly confused, which I understand, its the reason blacks perform poorly academically all across the world. I don’t hate you for this, why would I?

            It has nothing to do with skin colour if you are interested in this issue, if you may have noticed,black women are quite buff. They tend to have a strong jawline, and are difficult to distinguish from males when they wear baggy clothes and have short hair.The latter is my personal experience. They also have higher levels of testosterone then white and especially petite Asian women. Blacks have higher levels of testosterone then white males, and white males have higher levels of testosterone then Asians, I’m not contradicting this. This is no different then claiming whites are more intelligent then blacks, these are simply facts. Blacks have an average IQ of 85, Whites have an average IQ of about a 100. The national average of my country is 104. Which is 19 points higher then the average IQ of black Americans. Which may explain your confusion.

          • Marcus Garvey

            So again….your claiming that blacks are inferior to whites. Why do you try to explain this as not being racism? And I only brought up white being less superior physically to blacks because in your world all blacks are stupid compared to everyone else. So if we are going by stereotypes majority of whites have 5 inch penises while majority of blacks have 8+….just saying thats how it is by your logic. And did you ever think that blacks have lower average IQ NOT because they are black but because they are born in POORER areas. Meaning less nutrients at a time when the brain is developing rapidly and environments that DONT foster proper learning. Its easy to point out the lower IQ but a truly intelligent person would look to the socioeconomic factors and not skin color as the issue.

        • evilsandmich

          It is your fault that you want to eradicate a race of ppl

          I don’t know about that most here (all?) would be perfectly content to live away from those that seek to do us harm, a fairly natural instinct. It’s not our fault that most of those that fall into that group are black.

          truly believe that melanin makes one inferior to the other

          You assert then that all races are equal in every way. Proof of assertion please.

          • Marcus Garvey

            You want proof that all men are created equal?? LOL only a racist of the highest degree would even think there needs to be “proof” of that.

    • Jim

      Actually, most on this site would go along with one of Marcus Garvey’s main goals: repatriation of blacks to Africa.

    • evilsandmich

      Not sure what you’re getting at, but perhaps you should peruse some black nationalists sites if you’re in the mood for racism.

      • Marcus Garvey

        One just needs to peruse this racist site to see racism you bigot

    • DailyKenn

      I’m offended

    • NothingMan00

      Thanks! Maybe with a little effort we can move up to that coveted #1 spot.

  • knuckledragger

    …imagine a conversation with Stanley where you try to convince him of the “worth ” and “equality” of all men. The poor guy would die laughing.

  • DailyKenn

    Glossary:

    hagiography – a book about someone’s life that makes it seem better than it really is or was

    putative – assumed to exist or to have existed

    ignoble – not deserving respect

    feckless – having or resulting from a weak character or nature

    munificent – Showing great generosity

    misanthrope – a person who does not like other people

    irascible – having or showing a tendency to be easily angered

    pontificate – express one’s opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic

    pasha – the title of a Turkish officer of high rank

    Faustian – insatiably striving for worldly knowledge and power even at the price of spiritual values

    comport – To conduct or behave (oneself) in a particular manner

  • Jim

    Interesting article. Fascinating man.

  • Marcus Garvey

    You do realize more white people are on welfare than blacks right? You racist POS. Guess what?? You lived to see a BLACK MAN as president! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!

  • Marcus Garvey

    Marcus Garvey just wanted to help his people. I know that scares you being a little white pansy

  • Martel

    Reply to marcus Garvey:

    I would never say all blacks are “stupid compared to everyone else”. Is this how you feel when discussing these matters?

    If
    so, you should take a look at the bell curve, the average IQ score does
    not say everything, there are many intelligent blacks. Its just
    statistically less likely for a black individual to be as clever as a
    white or an Asian individual. This is why blacks perform poorly
    academically everywhere you go, but there are also quite a few blacks
    who succeed.

    In our other discussion I informed you that
    environmental factors have a limited influence on IQ, this has been
    thoroughly studied. There are many whites who are less intelligent then I
    am, and genetic studies predict that their offspring will likely be
    less intelligent then my offspring. If you take this same principle and
    apply it to blacks, you will notice a significantly greater portion of
    blacks have an IQ lower then 100, and a significantly smaller portion of
    blacks score higher then 100 in IQ tests. This difference is
    completely random, we have simply evolved differently, although its
    clear that surviving in Africa, rich in natural resources, is quite a
    lot easier then surviving in Europe, low in natural resources, during
    the winter times it was especially harsh. Natural selection allowed high
    testosterone black males to thrive, in Europe, intelligence was a key
    factor for success.

    This is why blacks In Brazil and Europe and
    Blacks in America tend to be as unsuccessful in terms of academical
    achievements, technological innovation, and occupational success as
    blacks in Africa. Asians Immigrants, who often grew up in appalling
    conditions, do not exhibit the same problems, which provides us with
    more evidence against your arguments about the influence of environment.

    In Belgium, a study was performed with adopted North Korean children,
    despite poor nutrition in their early years, they did amazingly well
    later on in life, consistent with IQ scores of Koreans. Adopted black
    children as studied in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study show
    hardly any difference, they hardly deviated from the average
    intelligence of Afro-American citizens.

    But do you actually believe black males have similar testosterone levels as Asian males?

    Are there any Asians in your city?
    Its quite obvious even to the naked eye.

  • Jon

    Yes interesting indeed but leaves one question: what would happened if we never traveled there because all the work we did was for naught. SA and Rhodesia both r n ruins and the Congo is no better off and even Liberia is a hole in the ground. Why did we go there and we should have left Africa to Islam because now the Black Africans are breeding like crazy. Truth is Central to south Africa is beyond hope. We have to admit the fact that not all people are cut out for civilization.

  • NoMosqueHere

    Many blacks are attracted to the violence and sexual sadism of Islam. Do you think such ignoramuses will actually investigate Islam’s history?

  • Nicholas I

    Some things never change: “In Turkey, they were beaten, robbed of everything they had, and one member of their group was raped at knifepoint. “

  • Nicholas I

    But what’s all this got to do with Rimbaud and Radio Ethiopia?