Free Sample: Double Standards paper example for writing essay

Double Standards - Essay Example

The biggest hypocrite of the three was King Leopold himself in the colonization of the Congo. One would think that a newly formed country that was once under rule of many different countries would be content with what they have and not look to rule or seize another less developed country. King Loophole’s comment “Belgium does not exploit the world,” (Household 38) Is the exact opposite of what he does to the Congo.

While King Leopold was raping the Congo of Its people, Its Ivory, and Its rubber, he told Colonel Williams in a meeting that, “What I do there is done as a Christian duty to he poor Africa; and I do not wish to have one franc back of all the money I have expended. ” (106), which is the exact opposite of his intentions. He even went as far as to hide the money and doctor the books, so he could pocket the profits. Another example of King Loophole’s hypocrisy is his accepting the recognition for being a humanitarian.

It is hard to Imagine someone accepting labels like, “humanitarian” (92) or his efforts being called “the greatest humanitarian work of this time,” (46) when people are being tortured, raped, mutilated and murdered under his lull Forcing the local Congolese Into slave labor when he himself denounced the Arab slave trade is by no means humanitarian. Or, putting the Congolese in chains and Justifying it as teaching them, “the sanctity of work” (118) humanitarian either, it is quite the opposite. You should not have to put any other human being in chains In order to teach them the sanctity of work.

Lastly, using false promises of building churches and hospices Just so that he can gain access to Congo land Is also hypocritical. King Leopold instead, used this as a front to build trading posts and military camp sites. Henry Morton Stanley was a hypocrite as well during his exploration of the Congo in the way he treated his porters and his handed picked exploration help. When Stanley fought in the American Civil War, he was captured and became a prisoner of war. One would be Inclined to believe that being a former prisoner of war, Stanley would be more sympathetic towards enslaving another human and putting them in chains.

When he explored the Congo, he did just that. Not only did he put these human beings in chains, he complained about their work ethic by saying, “The blacks give an immense amount of trouble; they are too ungrateful to suit my fancy. ” (31). Secondly, Stanley hypocrisy was evident with who he choose as his help. Never wanting to be outshone, Stanley would hire those who again complain about who he choose, “l have had no friend on any expedition, no one who could possibly be my companion, on an equal footing, except while with Livingston….

How can he who has witnessed many wars hope to be understood by one whose most shocking sight has been a nose-bleed? ” (64). He did this to himself. Stanley nearly dies because of his selfish hypocrisy. If he was not so consumed with Ewing the only person capable leading or receiving all the glory for the explorations, he would have been able to accomplish a lot more than he did. Not only was Stanley a hypocrite during his exploration of the Congo, he was also a hypocrite in his own personal life. Being fearful of woman, Stanley would still try and marry.

Although all three of his attempts at marriage failed, he still pursued marriage. He could not even meet with his ex-fiance Alice Pike to retrieve his letters that he requested. Secondly, Stanley totted a bible as a young man and said he discussed the bible with “my ether” (24). But, nowhere in his actions towards others does he seem too man of God. In fact, he does the opposite by trying to get missionaries to go to the Congo in order to help with, “the general indecency of their nakedness,” (57).

Men of god show mercy, compassion, grace, and understanding, none of which was displayed here. He even told tribal leaders that there eleven commands, with the eleventh being, “Honor and respect kings, for they are the envoys of God. ” (50), a god fearing man should not have to lie about the Ten Commandments. After this, the bible was never mentioned gain in connection with Stanley. Lastly, when it came to writing his books, Stanley would not allow his fellow explores publish any writings until his was written first.

He made them wait six months after his books were published before they could publish their books. He wanted to make sure that his accounts were the first to be read, as well as to make more money, since his books would be the only ones available for a while. The last person that I found to be a hypocrite in King Loophole’s Ghost is Colonel George Washington Williams. Although Colonel Williams deserves mom praise for speaking up against King Loophole’s treatment of the Congolese, earlier in his life performed similar acts when he fought against the Native Indians in America.

There are no writings form Colonel Williams in manner of how the American Indians were treated. So, one has to wonder what his motives were. Did he only speak up about the Congolese because they shared the same skin color or did he Just have enough? With no mention of the American Indians atrocities, one would have to question (at that time) his validity to be a credible witness. Colonel Williams hypocrisy was also shone in his faith. Colonel Williams went to Theology school and became a minister/preacher.

But, later abandoned his wife and his child to marry someone else in another country. He never told his new wife about his other family or told his family in America about his new wife. As like the other hypocrites mentioned, Williams embellished his stories to get what he wanted. He used and smoothed talk people like Cooling P. Huntington to get money for trip to the Congo, as well as using his meeting with the President of the United States by implying that was carrying out an important and confidential mission for him, (107).

Is this not the same Justification of hypocrisy that both King Leopold and Stanley used to get what they wanted? In conclusion, we all are hypocrites, in one form or another. Whether you are on one side of an argument or another, or if it is in your words and actions. Be a hypocrite. And it is rare to find someone that would admit that they are. So, like a cop who talks on his cell while driving knowing it is illegal or “taste testing” grapes in the grocery store and not calling it stealing, we are all hypocrites. And even though it is one of my biggest pet peeves, I too, am a hypocrite.