"Excessive" is a euphemism for this ridiculous political pamphlet of a lead: 252 words about Leopold's atrocities in the Congo and 179 words about anything else during his 44-year reign.
But he did commit atrocities, that's true. I'm sure articles about other colonial powers are the same. Or are they?
Let's have a look at
East India Company. This merciless money machine that squeezed India for a hundred years and caused famines that killed millions does not have A SINGLE WORD about its atrocities in the lead. In fact, the only problem seems to be that it "had recurring problems with its finances," the poor thing.
OK, maybe it's an unfortunate omission. Let's take the
Indian Rebellion of 1857. This event that claimed the lives of up to a million Indians (versus six thousand British colonialists) is described in its lead as inflicting violence "on both sides, on British officers, and civilians, including women and children, by the rebels, and on the rebels".
Who is listed as the British leader during the rebellion?
Queen Victoria. Surely, there must be something about the massacre of close to a million people on her page? There is! "The Queen had a relatively balanced view of the conflict, and condemned atrocities on both sides." How nice.
In conclusion, it seems that Leopold is the only 19th-century royal scoundrel deserving such a lead. But, of course, his atrocities were done in his own name, not in the name of the glorious British Empire. That's surely completely different. --
Sobol Sequence (
talk) 21:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
