Talk:Congo Free State/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed merge with Congolese Genocide

content is already covered on other page CutOffTies (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the various sources

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. That is like saying the Holocaust is covered in World War II. This is one of the largest genocides ever. It is big enough and important enough to have it's own page. Also Robert Weisbord stated in the 2003 Journal of Genocide Research that attempting to eliminate a portion of the population is enough to qualify as genocide under the UN convention. In the case of the Congo Free State, the unbearable conditions would qualify as a genocide. Weisbord, Robert G. (2003). "The King, the Cardinal and the Pope: Leopold II's genocide in the Congo and the Vatican". Journal of Genocide Research 5: 35–45. doi:10.1080/14623520305651. NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I've Afd'd the article, if just for the title. I quote from Hochschild: "no reputable historian of the Congo has made charges of genocide; a forced labor system, although it may be equally deadly, is different". I don't see why this cannot be covered here - as it is already. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Disagree - no precedent for removing an article on a state. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess it may appear ambiguous but the proposal was merging Congolese Genocide to this article. --CutOffTies (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Not taking sides yet -- I'm not sure whether there's enough material to justify both articles. The main fact of the Free State is the catastrophe for the Congolese population, and that's what "Congo Free State" is primarily about. What more would "Congolese Genocide" add to this article? And "Genocide" is a strong word with precise meaning arguably not applicable here: Leopold had no particular antipathy for the natives, he just wanted all their resources. I would like to see RS's justifying its use. -- Elphion (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Congolese Genocide

Good Afternoon - thanks for giving us the opportunity to use this forum. I teach Year 11 Modern History and generally refer the students to this site first to get a basic understanding of the situation and issues during the time of the Scramble for Africa. If you do decide to merge your site - that is perfectly acceptable to me. The students will be able to access this information under the search facility. Thanks again Joy N Perkins History Teacher Glossop High School South Australia/ Australia July 3rd, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.255.237 (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

request for improvement to article: who are the Congelese people mentioned in the article?

That brings me to a severe weakness of the article. Who were the local peoples? What tribes, ethnicities, languages and religions did the Congolese people mentioned in the article include? Congolese is not even linked to another article. Was it the Kongo people that were being subjugated? Did it include any of these other tribes in the Angola region? Were there any Pygmy involved and were their villages destroyed? The article spends huge amount of focus on actions of the Europeans without much delving into the people that were subjugated or at least linking us to relevant articles about them. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That said, I think your second comments are very valid. This article is not a particularly wonderful one and could certainly do with an explanation of the pre-colonial Congo Basin for sure. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Western Pre-European colonial political map.

The people of the Congo did not have a Congolese nation state prior to this, thus no Congo national identity, so while it maybe convenient to call them "Congolese population" throughout the article; it is inaccurate. This period of history is what laid the groundwork for the current national identity of Democratic Republic of the Congo. The population of the Congo basin, at the time, was based on identities around the Kongo Kingdom (not mentioned), Kingdom of Loango (not mentioned), and the Anziku Kingdom (not mentioned) in the depopulated western areas.

Southeastern Pre-European colonial political map.

There were some small nations in the African Great Lakes regions including the Yeke Kingdom (mentioned in the discussion about Msiri), Luba Empire(not mentioned and they developed the ruling council/monarchy form of government popular to the area and was in constant decline from Belgium raids for slaves), Lunda Kingdom (not mentioned, were brought down by the Chokwe people who had guns obtained from European traders) and the Kazembe Kingdom(not mentioned). In the southeast was the Kuba Kingdom which was attacked (Zappo_Zap#Kuba_massacre) by Leopold's allies, the Zappo Zap (also not mentioned in the article and neither is the fact they provided mistresses to the Belgium colonists or that they were acting as a proxy militia to carry out missions the Force Publique were unable to, from lack of manpower, or because the mission was too politically dirty), when they refused to provide rubber as tribute to Leopold. The article addresses Msiri's downfall but doesn't mention any of those small nations that succumbed to Leopold's colonization. The three current major ethnic groups are Mongo, Luba and Kongo but what was the ethnic map in 1890? The small kingdoms were formed around ethnic groups, such as the Loanga being made up of the Bavili (speakers of the Vili language). What Leopold (and Belgium) did reshaped the ethnic and cultural map of the Congo basin, developed the early roots of a Congo Nation State identity, and these consequences should be reflected in the article. What happened to these small kingdoms during the Congo Free State period and how the Congo Free State politics reshaped them should be mentioned in the article. It appears that the ethnic and cultural divisions of the area were used as tools to divide and conquer in order to get the desired rubber.

Much of this information is all found on Wikipedia (Early Congolese history) and has been in the articles for a few years, and is sourced, so the appropriate links to the ethnic groups, languages and kingdoms involved could have easily been hyperlinked in the Congo Free State article.

It should be noted that the western areas were severely depopulated, at the time, because massive numbers of the population had been transported to the Americas for slavery and the population levels hadn't recovered to the Kongo Kingdom period. This made it much easier for the Belgium colonization.

Thanks to the editor that added the village of Baringa, Equateur photo but the caption calls it a Congo village when it is a village of the Mongo people and paid tribute to one of area's kingdoms, likely Yeke at the time. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Congo Free State. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100205012517/http://collin.francois.free.fr:80/Le_tour_du_monde/ to http://collin.francois.free.fr/Le_tour_du_monde/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100205012517/http://collin.francois.free.fr:80/Le_tour_du_monde/ to http://collin.francois.free.fr/Le_tour_du_monde/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070618035533/http://www.lse.ac.uk:80/library/archive/Default.htm to http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/archive/Default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

revisionism

what is all this revisionist "pro-colonial" crap in the intro?

& the use of "alleged" when describing well-documented crimes against humanity?

Lx 121 (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

state or dependent territory

@AusLondonder: I am working on List of territorial governors in the 20th century and List of state leaders in the 20th century, and I want to include Congo Free State on one list or the other. Do you think it should it be listed as a state on its own (on the one), or a colony/dependent territory of Belgium (on the other)? tahc ^chat 20:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi tahc. This is somewhat a tricky one. There's no doubt that Belgian Congo which succeeded the Congo Free State was a colony. My view would be that the Congo Free State, whilst an undemocratic dictatorship, was more of a corporate state than a dependent territory. It did receive some recognition at the time. It was more a colony of a person rather than a colony of another state. That person was the Belgian monarch though. International criticism regarding the exceptionally abusive regime actually specifically led to the Belgian government annexing the Congo and creating the Belgian Congo colony. Leopold II of Belgium held the title of "Sovereign of the Congo Free State" with a Governor-General also serving as shown on this colonial governor list. It is not quite like other colonial situations, it almost seems like it could be on both lists. What are your thoughts? AusLondonder (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Congo Free State sounds like a it was considered its own state at the time and that readers would normally look first under List of state leaders in the 20th century to find it.

Right now there is an occational pattern of putting ordinary colonies (or more often, dependent territories that are no longer called a colony) on both lists. I think it is a total mistake to put ordinary dependent territories on the same list as (sovereign) states, since (a) then there is no purpose in having two different lists (b) the list are very-long and complicated as they are already.

It we added Congo Free State (without a clear reason as-to why) to List of territorial governors in the 20th century then editors would be very prone to had other territories to the state list. tahc ^chat 23:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Links to DAB pages

The bluelinks under the images in the infobox are to two DAB pages: Flag of Congo and Coat of arms of the Congo. I have no idea how those links are generated or how to fix them. Can anyone help? Narky Blert (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Political background of E.D. Morel and Roger Casement

What exactly is supposed to be the point of this section? Whoever wrote this seems to be at great pains to paint Morel and Casement as German sympathizers and "traitors", which not only sounds like POV-pushing, is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Unless, of course, one is trying to argue that their actions regarding Congo were somehow motivated by pro-German sympathies, for which you'd obviously need a credible source. As it is, this section ought to be removed, as was already done once before. Jah77 (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This section appears to exist solely to tarnish the reputations of the two people most instrumental in exposing Leopold's ghastly regime, as though that somehow justifies or excuses Leopold. Characterizing Casement as an "Irish independence fighter" is particularly dishonest, as his tangential involvement in the push for home rule has no bearing whatsoever on his work against the horrors in the Congo. -- Elphion (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The material was introduced by this edit, which claims to have copied it from E. D. Morel, but I can't find the specific material there, and the relevant discussion of Casement and Morel there is also completely unsourced. The implication that Morel was anti-Belgian because he felt the treaty of Versailles was unjust is another bit of casual smearing. -- Elphion (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Casement was pro German... (sourced and he was even hanged for it) and Morel even proposed to give the largest part of the Congo to the German Empire and the rest to France (his birthplace, France which held claims to the Congo Free State if Leopold would go bankrupt) and the British Empire. This is not a secret and highly relevant, and sourced.. Do as you please with it, this section can indeed be greatly expanded. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced inuendo. Casement was hanged for involvement in the Irish independence movement, not for being "pro-German". Neither is relevant to the Congo. Nor was Morel "pro-German"; he was principally a pacifist, working against British and French aggression. He was imprisoned for pacifism during the First World War, not for German sympathies. I don't see anything at E. D. Morel suggesting transferring the Congo to Germany or France; if verifiable, that would have relevance here -- but not as "political background". -- Elphion (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response … -- Elphion (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Everything in this segment is sourced.. Your main argument seems to be that you want to change the title? The political background of the two leading figures seems important... And for "Morel was again sympathetic to Germany, disinclined to stand by Belgium under German pressure, and opposed to the United Kingdom and France getting involved in war" (from the E.D. Morel page btw), if you want to change that to "he was principally a pacifist, working against British and French aggression.", that's fine also, if you source it, some people might call it POV pushing though. And for Roger Casement (this is all on the Roger Casement page), he was sentenced for arranging German arms shipments for the Easter Rising, after being dropped off by a German submarine on Irish shores...Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that there's no established connection between Morel and Casement's actions regarding Congo and their alleged pro-German sympathies. What they did or didn't do AFTER the Congo affair by definition doesn't constitute a "political background" for the subject here; you're insinuating that their condemnation of Belgian policies was the result of pro-German sympathies, and I still see no proof for that claim. Jah77 (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not insinuating anything, the section simply states their political background (which is well documented and sourced). And for your other point, Casement joined Sinn Féin in 1905, the Congo Free State became the Belgian Congo in 1908. In 1912 the Congo Reform Association was dissolved, so their political views of 2 years after (and much of Morel's work on this topic is from an earlier period) are certainly relevant. Also, it is well documented that Middle Africa played an important role in the build up to WWI. (The impact of Colonial rivalry and aggression on Europe in 1914). Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are plainly insinuating that both Casement and Morel harbored pro-German motives, and that this lay behind their work to wrest the Congo from Leopold's control. Neither is true. Morel, in fact, as a young shipping clerk, was *excited* about Leopold's move into the Congo, as he felt trade in that area would be a boon to both Europe and Africa. He was bitterly disappointed when he learned the truth about Leopold's harsh methods and profiteering. As World War I approached, he saw clearly that the secret diplomacy of England and France was subverting efforts to clean up the Congo, and more generally, was pushing Europe toward a completely unnecessary war. As a result, he became involved in the anti-war effort, and was of course frequently tarred with the brush of "German support", routine for the propaganda of the time in Britain, France, and the US. It's all malarkey. And somehow twisting Casement's support for Sinn Fein into pro-German sympathy is just pathetic. His interest was Irish home rule, not support for Germany, and neither is relevant to the Congo. In short, this entire section violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and should be removed. -- Elphion (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Mittelafrika was one of the motives for WWI. You say "Morel was frequently tarred with the brush of "German support" ", why is this not relevant then? I don't see how you can actually claim Casement wasn't pro-German (which was perfectly fine, but it is relevant).Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not relevant because (a) it's slander, and (b) it has nothing to do with why Morel became involved in the Congo. And curiously, the Congo is not mentioned in the article you mentioned (Causes of World War I). "Mittelafrika" covers a lot of ground, and I've seen no evidence that Morel was actively promoting the transfer of the Congo to Germany. The principal tensions were Britain's determination to take over German colonies, not transfer of the Congo to Germany. -- Elphion (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And since this section fails to provide any credible sources for a link between Casement and Morel's criticism of the Congo Free State and their alleged pro-German sympathies, it also violates WP:SYNTH. Jah77 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if the wiki community agrees and feels their political background is irrelevant, ok... but in this discussion I didn't hear one valid argument (of the both of you), only denial of obvious facts (that were sourced). Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Your original theories and speculations are not "obvious facts", nor are they supported by the sources. Jah77 (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The main question is: Does it matter what their political background was? You argue it doesn't because their main political views and actions were a. unrelated to the independent state of the Congo, b. they had no political views and affiliations prior to WWI. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

a) The only one who claims their criticism of the CFS was motivated by pro-German sympathies is you, not your sources. b) Like I said before, unless Casement and Morel had a time machine, their actions AFTER their criticism of the CFS don't constitute a "political background". Jah77 (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

a) I don't claim anything of the sort, I do claim their political views are relevant b)I showed you that their political views were already present during their Congo campaign (your arguments are void, and you simply attack me personally) c) you still didn't answer the main question, "Are their political views relevant?".Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No, their "political views" are not relevant unless you can find a reliable source (NB: not a Belgian apologist) arguing that they harboured significant anti-Belgian, pro-German views AND that this was a significant motivating factor in their actions. You keep saying that these are well-sourced facts. They are not. The overwhelming narrative from the standard works (Ascherson, Aronson, Emerson, Hochschild) indicates otherwise. I'm not aware that even Stengers makes this argument. -- Elphion (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Your comment shows clear POV. There are some points I want to make. 1. The Independent State of the Congo (as Casement called it) wasn't Belgian, for some reason you keep messing this part up. 2.Casement was pro-Irish home rule, and the movement approached the Germans in 1901 to cooperate against the Brits (or the Germans approached the Irish nationalists, as you prefer). 3. Morel wasn't pro-German, but he pushed a pro-German narrative (for whatever reason.., the only thing that's easy to prove and source is that he pushed a pro-German narrative, or anti-Allied, as you prefer). 4. arguing that the atrocities in the Congo Free State cancel out any other complementary goals of the main characters pushing for the end of the Congo Free State is a void argument. Also, it doesn't even matter, even if they didn't have complementary goals, their political background remains relevant for the reader. 5. Everything that was on the main page was sourced (and the authors weren't Belgian apologists).. you just argue it shouldn't be on the main page, because Hochschild didn't mention it?... I mean indicates otherwise.. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. So: (1) Belgium reaped no benefits from Leopold's extensive building plan, funded primarily from plunder from the Congo. (2) The Irish revolutionaries sought support from anybody they could enlist. How is this remotely relevant to the Congo? (3) Yes, I agree: Morel was not pro-German. The label I prefer is "pacifist", as documented in the standard works. (4) No one is making this argument. (5) What are these reliable sources you are referring to?. -- Elphion (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you seriously claim you're NOT trying to argue that Casement and Morel's criticism of the CFS was based on their supposed pro-German sympathies, why are you focusing exclusively on this aspect of their "political background"? Jah77 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

We are going in circles here. @Elphion (1) and? (2) already widely discussed (3) call it whatever you want, not the point (4) ... (5) they are in the deleted text. @Jah77 Nobody stopped you from adding relevant information to the section. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

We keep going in circles, because you refuse to address problems that have been pointed out several times already. I've asked you to name a credible source that explicitly links Casement and Morel's views on Congo to their supposed pro-German sympathies. You haven't done so because you clearly don't have one (stop dodging the question by saying "they are in the deleted text" - if that's the case, you should be able to point out the exact reference), which makes your whole argument original research, and your one-sided coverage smacks of an attempt to discredit Casement and Morel through character assassination. YOU could have easily written this section in a more neutral manner based purely on Casement and Morel's own WP articles, but chose to cherry-pick bits that deliberately paint them as "traitors" or "anti-Belgian" - the way the section reads, "The pro-German sympathies of E.D. Morel and Roger Casement" would be a more appropriate heading. (And no, you can't excuse POV-pushing or promoting a fringe theory by saying "oh, let somebody else fix the bias".) Jah77 (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jah77, the sources relate to what was in the text, if you feel other relevant parts should have been in there you could have added them (as per my first reply, it could be greatly expanded), and the "supposed" part shows you still deny what was in the text (which is obviously undeniable and sourced). Large chunks of the text came from their own articles (as mentioned before). Also, how does it discredit them... , Morel worked mostly on WWI related propaganda (incl. before the war and after), and Casement was an Irish nationalist (how can you actually claim this discredits them or wasn't their political background..) and as mentioned before, if you feel they had other political views, add more content. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm running out of ways to say the same thing in English: YOUR SOURCES DON'T SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. If you had an actual source that would link Casement & Morel's supposed pro-German sympathies to their views on Congo, you would have given it already. It's painfully obvious that you don't. And yes, purposely misrepresenting their motives to suit your own agenda is a pretty clear attempt to discredit their criticism of Leopold and the Belgian handling of the Congo Free State. Read WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. If you either don't understand or refuse to abide by Wikipedia policies, further discussion is pointless. Jah77 (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

New citation

I can't find any evidence that a book called "Crimes of Rumba" actually exists. This page is the top hit on web searches for that phrase. It also seems an unlikely reference for war crimes. Napoleon84, want to comment? IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, the book is machine-translated, I think. The Google Books description includes, "Embark in this riveting literary journey to discover how Socit Gnrales authoritarian harvest of music cash crops has shattered and destroyed lives and careers for its economic gain in the Americas." It's also from a vanity press (XLIBRIS). I am removing the reference. IAmNitpicking (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Human hands as (unofficial) currency

I've tagged the infobox content of 'human hands' as unofficial currency as WP:SYNTH. Both sources provided are dubious:

The Congo: Plunder and Resistance (no page no. provided) and

The World's Worst Atrocities (tagged for needing a page number since November 2014), and actual descriptions of the practice do not suggest this to be a form of currency, but a cruel practice. As it stands it is a contravention of No original research, and Wikipedia follow what reliable sources say, not what personal interpretation is considered to be. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it. Historically, it's wrong though there were certainly many parallel currencies circulating in the Congo at the same time.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Brigade Piron. I should have reverted the IP immediately, but I'm unwell, and have been tackling battleground newbies and IP's, and I just didn't have the strength to take another obscure edit war on. I'm really only keep my hand in with a bit of knoming. It seems that our IP doesn't know the difference between archaic economic systems (as appalling as they were) and currency. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nsala of Wala in Congo looks at the severed hand and foot of his five-year old daughter, 1904.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• MutilatedChildrenFromCongo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)