(Or Not)

This is the first book to show the psychology behind these explorers and conquerers, but it does not change my view of these enterprises. While it makes me understand the motives behind the individual people, it does not justify their actions.
      When people try to escape part of themselves, their vision is clouded. Leopold had a troubled family life and felt a loss of political power in his own country. He turned this into brutal conquer of the Congo. Stanley has been troubled by rejection his entire life. He takes power in physical brutal conquer in the Congo. In the modern world, I think of Wall Street being controlled by a bunch of people who probably feel they need to always be on top, and who knows the stories that lead them to those feelings that cause corruption.
      But when people try to escape part of their external situation, the result is better. Sheppard may have gone to the Congo to escape segregation, and he did the most good in the Congo that we have seen so far in the book. Because he was escaping an external problem, not something part of himself, the results were not a disaster.
      These people problems are being pushed on to colonial exploitation. People who have emotional problems should not be in charge of these exploits. I don't know if people used therapists at this time, but Leopold and Stanley definitely should have talked to some instead of taking it out on the Congo.
      People having problems does not make me change my views of exploitation - it just makes me sad that society allows such people to be in charge.