In The Ghost of King Leopold, Hoschild shares with his readers the unknown story of King Leopold of Belgium's exploitation of the Congo and the horrific crimes committed against the humanity for economic and political profit. The author's goal in this book was to bring awareness to what happened in this historical moment. Hoschild shows us that much of history as we know it is biased and Eurocentric. Many times history is created or monitored by those in power (politically or economically) and their biases are created out of malice, ignorance, or self-preservation. Throughout this book, Hoschild was able to illuminate and explore the other side of this very unknown piece of history through the investigation and inclusion of sources that had been forgotten or suppressed. The book begins by explaining the early expeditions to the Congo and Leopold's plans to colonize and find ways to profit from the ivory and rubber trade in Africa. Hoschild described many of the atrocities and the events themselves from many first-hand accounts, documents, and recordings that they managed to preserve through the Congo reform movement. He referenced many of his works from Morton Stanley and also from “Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad. I think throughout the book you can clearly see the author's frustration with the horrible events that happened and how they easily went unnoticed by the rest of the world. Congo's population was almost halved as a result of this genocide and he points out that if it weren't for many of these first-hand accounts, a lot of history would be "forgotten" and let slip away. An example of this became clear to me when Henry Morton Stanley's true intent was revealed. In many history books... in the middle of paper... or have written in the past. The best way to responsibly address these issues is to connect history to the current world and learn. In so many ways, Hoschild has shown his frustration to his readers that the story is written so biased and has many times been distorted and perceived untruthfully. Hoschshild often referred to the findings of other scholars and provided many documents on historical events in the Congo. These primary sources were how he educated and informed his readers with all the necessary context. Throughout the book you can say that he is strongly against the events in Congo, but I don't think that takes away any kind of credibility from his story. In so many situations throughout history, the past has been "forgotten" or left out to preserve the image of a person or country or for other reasons and keep people naive and in the dark..