This paper responds to the documentary film Congo: White King, Red Rubber, Black Death (2004), examining how Belgian King Leopold II colonized the Congo beginning in 1885 under the guise of spreading Christianity and civilization while exploiting the land's natural resources and enslaving its people. The paper discusses the catastrophic human cost of Leopold's rule — estimated at ten million deaths — and critiques how subsequent historians, particularly Christian apologists, helped rehabilitate Leopold's reputation. The essay also reflects on the documentary's broader indictment of colonialism and the tendency of dominant cultures to rewrite history in ways that minimize or excuse atrocities.
The paper demonstrates source-based critical analysis: the student does not merely summarize the documentary but uses it as a lens to evaluate historical claims, identify revisionist narratives, and argue a thesis about accountability. This shows how a film response can function as a form of historical argument rather than passive description.
The paper opens with pre-colonial context, narrows to Leopold's specific colonial project, details the human cost, then pivots to a critique of how history has misrepresented those events. The final paragraph synthesizes the film's thesis with the student's own moral and historiographical conclusions, providing a strong closing argument.
In the documentary film Congo: White King, Red Rubber, Black Death, the filmmakers endeavor to show how the nation known as Congo came to be. Like many modern African countries, Congo was originally divided into regions based upon the indigenous tribes who made the land their home. During this period, it cannot be honestly proclaimed that all was peace and cooperation between factions — far from it. However, life was far better during the pre-colonial era for the native people of Congo than it would become following the expansion of European powers into the African continent. This film endeavors to remove the veneer that has been placed on events and show Congo's history for what it truly was.
Many people suffered under the control of European imperial powers. In Congo, the oppression of the native population was carried out most devastatingly by King Leopold II, who ruled Congo as a personal colony tied to his kingdom of Belgium. Beginning in 1885, Leopold sent Belgian forces into Congo and extracted the land's natural resources, particularly rubber. He claimed that Belgium's presence in Congo was meant to spread western ideologies, the Christian faith, and modern technologies to a region of the world that Europeans regarded as uncivilized and backward.
His actual intentions, however, had everything to do with the acquisition of land and the exploitation of natural resources in order to generate wealth and transform the relatively small nation of Belgium into a more powerful country. Appallingly, an estimated ten million native people were killed during the approximately fifty years in which Belgium controlled Congo.
Leopold was not the only European ruler who set his sights on African territory, but he was far more severe and ruthless in his methods than many of the others. Much of the country was turned into labor camps where natives were enslaved and forced to mine and harvest resources for their imperial oppressors. Torture and murder were everyday occurrences, and the death toll was higher than in the other colonies of the era. The Congo Free State became a byword for colonial brutality that shocked even some contemporary European observers.
You’re 47% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.